Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs Tiffaney Whitt, on behalf of her minor children, and Jeremiah Parker, Whitt’s adult son, filed a lawsuit against Kearney School District and Durham School Services, L.P., due to racial harassment experienced by Parker and his siblings on a school bus operated by Durham. Plaintiffs alleged a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim against Durham, asserting they were third-party beneficiaries of the contract between Kearney and Durham, which required safe, harassment-free transportation.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied Durham’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, which challenged the validity of Plaintiffs’ § 1981 claim. Durham then filed a motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in its contract with Kearney. The district court denied this motion, concluding that Durham waived its right to enforce the arbitration clause by not raising it earlier in the litigation. Durham appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Durham knew of its right to arbitrate, as it possessed the contract containing the arbitration clause, and acted inconsistently with that right by engaging in extensive litigation and discovery before filing the motion to compel arbitration. The court also noted that the district court’s consideration of prejudice to Plaintiffs, although erroneous, did not affect the substantial rights of the parties. The appellate court rejected Durham’s argument that it could not have known to seek arbitration until the district court’s summary judgment ruling and found that Durham’s actions were inconsistent with preserving its right to arbitrate. The court also denied Plaintiffs’ request to adopt a process for certifying interlocutory appeals as frivolous and their request for costs under Fed. R. App. P. 38. View "Parker v. Durham School Services, L.P." on Justia Law

Deidre Parker, a black woman, was employed as a Program Management Assistant by the Risk Management Agency (RMA) of the USDA starting in March 2011. She filed an EEOC complaint in 2013, which was settled in 2015. Parker alleged that after the settlement, she experienced race and gender discrimination, retaliation, constructive discharge, and a hostile work environment. Her duties diminished after a change in the timekeeping system, and she was tasked with cleaning out file cabinets. She requested additional work and development opportunities but did not act on them. Parker received two letters of counseling for disruptive conduct and filed EEOC complaints in 2017 and 2018, alleging discrimination and retaliation.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment in favor of the USDA on all counts. The court limited its review to events occurring after the 2015 settlement agreement, finding that Parker had waived claims arising before that date. The court found that Parker failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation under the McDonnell Douglas framework, as most of the conduct did not constitute an adverse employment action, and there was no evidence supporting an inference of discrimination. Her hostile work environment claims failed due to a lack of causal link between the USDA’s conduct and her race or gender, and her constructive discharge claim failed because she did not prove that her workplace was intolerable or that the USDA intended for her to quit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of Parker’s claims to conduct occurring after the settlement agreement. The court also found that Parker failed to demonstrate a causal nexus between the alleged adverse actions and her race or gender, and that her claims of hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation were unsupported by sufficient evidence. View "Parker v. United States" on Justia Law

Evanston Insurance Company issued commercial umbrella liability policies to Nooter, LLC, covering the period from July 1, 1981, to July 1, 1985. Evanston sought a declaration in the Eastern District of Missouri that it no longer had a duty to defend or indemnify Nooter in ongoing state court asbestos-related personal injury litigation. Evanston claimed that its policy limits were exhausted as of December 29, 2022, after tendering the remaining available limits to Nooter.Previously, Nooter and Evanston litigated insurance coverage issues in Missouri state court, where it was determined that Evanston had a duty to defend and indemnify Nooter against asbestos exposure claims. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict against Evanston for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay claims. Nooter filed a motion for contempt in state court, which was denied, but the court noted that Evanston's tender of policy limits did not fulfill its duty to defend.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal of Evanston's complaint based on claim preclusion. The court held that Missouri's prohibition on claim splitting applied, as the claims arose from the same contracts and transactions involved in the state court litigation. The court found that Evanston's indemnity and defense obligations had already been decided by Missouri courts, and thus, the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the claims. The court also affirmed the denial of Evanston's motion to amend the complaint and the motion to deposit funds as moot. The dismissal was without prejudice to Evanston's ability to seek relief in state court. View "Evanston Insurance Company v. Nooter, LLC" on Justia Law

Tennessee and sixteen other states challenged a regulation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which mandates reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions, including abortion. The states argued that the regulation unlawfully required them to accommodate employees seeking abortions, conflicting with their policies. They sought an injunction and a declaratory judgment against the rule, claiming it was arbitrary, exceeded EEOC's authority, violated the First Amendment and federalism principles, and was unconstitutional under Article II.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the case, ruling that the states lacked standing as they did not demonstrate an imminent injury or that the alleged injuries were redressable. The court found the risk of enforcement speculative and compliance costs not directly traceable to the rule. The court also dismissed the states' motion for a preliminary injunction as moot and for failing to show irreparable harm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the states had standing as they were the direct objects of the EEOC's regulation, which imposed new obligations on them. The court found that the states were injured by the regulatory burden itself and that setting aside the rule would remedy this injury. The court concluded that the states' need to comply with the rule constituted an injury in fact, caused by the EEOC's action, and redressable by a favorable judicial decision. The case was remanded for further proceedings without addressing the merits of the claims. View "State of Tennessee v. EEOC" on Justia Law

Seven states challenged a rule by the Department of Education that modified an existing income contingent repayment (ICR) plan for federal student loans, known as the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan. This plan altered payment thresholds, stopped interest accrual, and forgave loan balances after as little as ten years of repayment. The states argued that the Secretary of Education exceeded statutory authority by forgiving loans through an ICR plan.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri found that the states were likely to succeed on their claim and issued a preliminary injunction against the rule’s early loan forgiveness provisions. Both parties appealed: the federal officials sought to vacate the preliminary injunction, while the states requested a broader injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the states were likely to succeed in their claim that the Secretary’s authority to promulgate ICR plans does not include loan forgiveness at the end of the payment period. The court held that the statute requires ICR plans to be designed for borrowers to repay their loan balances in full through payments that can fluctuate based on income during the payment term. The court determined that the Secretary had exceeded this authority by designing a plan where loans are largely forgiven rather than repaid.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the entry of the preliminary injunction but concluded that the district court erred by not enjoining the entire rule. The court remanded the case with instructions to modify the injunction to cover the entire SAVE Rule and the revived forgiveness provisions under the previous REPAYE plan. View "State of Missouri v. Trump" on Justia Law

Fourteen civilly committed clients of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) filed a lawsuit challenging MSOP policies that affected their spiritual group activities, particularly those impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Before the pandemic, MSOP allowed clients to participate in spiritual groups under certain conditions. However, during the pandemic, MSOP implemented new regulations that restricted these activities. Plaintiffs argued that these restrictions violated the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiffs' claims were moot because the COVID-19 restrictions had been lifted, and pre-pandemic policies were reinstated. The court also declined to address new concerns raised by the plaintiffs regarding MSOP's current policies, as these issues were not included in the second amended complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs' claims about the pandemic-era policies were moot since those policies were no longer in effect. The court also found that the plaintiffs' new concerns about MSOP's current policies were not properly pled in the second amended complaint and thus were not before the court. Additionally, the appellate court denied the plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record with discovery documents, as the plaintiffs failed to provide a valid reason for not including these documents earlier, and their inclusion would not change the case's resolution. View "Allan v. Minnesota DHS" on Justia Law

Curtis Temple, a cattle rancher and member of the Oglala Sioux Indian Tribe (OST), had his grazing permits on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation expire on October 31, 2012. He reapplied for new permits, but another OST member, Donald Buffington, also applied. The OST allocation committee found Temple had over 1,600 cattle, exceeding the 300 animal unit limit, making Buffington the eligible applicant. Temple's permits were awarded to Buffington, and Temple's appeals to the OST executive committee and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) were unsuccessful. Temple continued to graze his cattle on the land allocated to Buffington, leading to multiple trespass notices and eventual impoundment of his cattle by the BIA.Temple filed a lawsuit in the District of South Dakota in August 2015, seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) and contesting the permit allocation. The district court denied the TRO and dismissed Temple's permit allocation claims, requiring him to exhaust administrative remedies. Temple's due process claims regarding the impoundment of his cattle proceeded, but the district court found that the written notices of trespass provided to Temple were sufficient and did not violate his due process rights. Temple's motion to continue the trial was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Temple was provided due process through the written notices of trespass and had ample opportunity to contest the trespass determinations. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Temple's permit allocation claims for failure to exhaust tribal remedies, as he did not appeal the tribal court's decision. Lastly, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Temple's motion to continue the trial. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Curtis Temple v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Iowa enacted Senate File 2340, which criminalizes the presence of aliens who have illegally reentered the United States within its boundaries. The Act mandates that aliens violating it must return to the country they reentered from and prohibits judges from abating state prosecutions due to pending or possible federal determinations of the alien’s immigration status. The United States sought a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Act, which the district court granted. Iowa appealed the decision.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ruled that the United States had standing to sue and could state a cause of action to enjoin the Act. The court found that the United States established a likelihood of success on the merits, showing that federal immigration law preempts the Act under both conflict and field preemption. The court also found that irreparable harm would occur if the Act went into effect and that the balance of equities and public interest favored granting the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion, examining factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the United States had standing and an equitable cause of action to enjoin the Act. The court found that the Act likely conflicts with federal immigration law, as it obstructs the discretion of federal officials and creates a parallel enforcement scheme. The court also agreed that the United States demonstrated irreparable harm and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the injunction. The preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Act was affirmed. View "United States v. State of Iowa" on Justia Law

CEZ Prior, LLC ("CEZ") entered into a purchase agreement with 755 N Prior Ave., LLC ("Prior") to buy a property for $26 million. The agreement required Prior to cooperate in obtaining tenant estoppel certificates. Errors in square footage measurements led to rent discrepancies, prompting an amendment to reduce the purchase price to $15.1 million and the cash required at closing to $3.8 million. CEZ later requested to delay closing due to financial issues, but Prior did not agree. Prior sent estoppel certificates that did not address rate increases, and CEZ proposed edits that Prior rejected. CEZ demanded satisfactory certificates on the closing date, but Prior terminated the agreement, alleging CEZ failed to tender cash.CEZ sued Prior for breach of contract in Minnesota state court and sought to enjoin the termination. Prior removed the case to federal court and counterclaimed for breach of contract. The district court stayed the matter and later denied CEZ's motion for a preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction. The court found that CEZ was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its breach of contract claim, as Prior had reasonably cooperated in obtaining the estoppel certificates. The balance of harms favored Prior, given CEZ's insufficient evidence of its ability to pay. The public interest did not favor CEZ due to its low probability of success on the merits.The court also addressed CEZ's argument under Minnesota law, finding that the district court's stay order was not an injunction and did not extend statutory deadlines. Consequently, CEZ was not entitled to additional time to close under Minnesota statutes. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "CEZ Prior, LLC v. 755 N Prior Ave. LLC" on Justia Law

John Doe filed a putative class action against SSM Health Care Corporation in Missouri state court, alleging that SSM shared private health information with third-party marketing services without authorization, violating Missouri law. Doe claimed that SSM's MyChart patient portal transmitted personal health data to third-party websites like Facebook. The lawsuit included nine state law claims, such as violations of the Missouri Wiretap Statute and the Computer Tampering Act.SSM removed the case to federal court, citing the federal officer removal statute and the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Doe moved to remand the case to state court. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri rejected SSM's arguments, ruling that SSM was not "acting under" a federal officer and that Doe's proposed class was limited to Missouri citizens, thus lacking the minimal diversity required under CAFA. The district court remanded the case to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that SSM did not meet the criteria for federal officer removal because it was not acting under the direction of a federal officer. The court also held that the proposed class was limited to Missouri citizens, which destroyed the minimal diversity necessary for CAFA jurisdiction. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's remand order. View "Doe v. SSM Health Care Corporation" on Justia Law