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

Plaintiff commenced an action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, challenging the legality of the search and alleging several federal and state claims against various individuals pertaining to the “repeated, intentional harassment by officers of the Kansas City Missouri Police Department (“KCPD”) over the course of more than three years.” The issue of punitive damages had been raised earlier in the proceedings. During the instructions conference, Plaintiff objected to the district court’s failure to submit instructions on punitive damages, asserting the evidence established the defendants acted with reckless indifference to his constitutional rights. On appeal, Plaintiff contends the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on punitive damages. He suggests that we should review his alleged error de novo. Without specifying a review standard, Defendant argues the merits of Riggs’ punitive damages claim.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that a finding that an officer violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights establishes liability under Section 1983, but it “does not necessitate a finding of callous indifference warranting punitive damages.” The court wrote that Plaintiff has failed to convince the court that the district court’s failure to sua sponte raise the issue of punitive damages after the verdict was received “seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings” such that there would be “a miscarriage of justice if left uncorrected.” View "Micah Riggs v. Robert Gibbs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Missouri prison officials under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging deprivations of his constitutional rights while incarcerated. The officials moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and the district court denied the motion on two sets of claims. The officials appealed a portion of the order.   The Eighth Circuit reversed. The court explained that even assuming for the sake of analysis that Plaintiff enjoyed a clearly established liberty interest in avoiding assignment to administrative segregation, it was not clearly established that he was entitled to the procedures set forth in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539. Further, the court explained that a reasonable official could have believed that the procedures applied in Plaintiff’s case were constitutionally sufficient. Informal due process requires only “some notice of the reasons for the inmate’s placement . . . and enough time to prepare adequately for the administrative review.” The procedures applied here meet the informal due process standard. The officials gave Plaintiff adequate notice of the reasons for his placement. The notice informed Plaintiff of his rights and identified the alleged victim, the date of the sexual assault, and the prison rule that he allegedly violated. View "James Spann v. George Lombardi" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a Section 1983 lawsuit against several defendants, including agents of the Grand Forks Narcotics Task Force (“GFNTF”). Plaintiff alleged two Fourth Amendment violations: (I) the warrant was based upon deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth -- the use of the informant to develop and generate false evidence incorporated in an affidavit; and (ii) Defendants deprived Plaintiff of a preliminary hearing at which Plaintiff would have been discharged because the warrant was not supported by probable cause. Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment dismissing these claims.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court agreed with the district court that the affidavit provided probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, even if corrected to include the information Plaintiff alleged was recklessly omitted. The court explained that there is no evidence any of the defendants knew about the false “murder-for-hire” allegations when the warrant affidavit was submitted. An agent does not “violate a clearly established constitutional right by omitting information from a warrant application that he does not actually know, even if the reason is his own reckless investigation.” As Plaintiff’s subsequent, lengthy investigation of the informant makes clear, minimal further investigation into the informant’s criminal history would not have exonerated Plaintiff. View "Henry Howe v. Steven Gilpin" on Justia Law

This case started more than fifty years ago when Minnie Liddell sued to desegregate the St. Louis public school system. The NAACP joined the lawsuit, and the State of Missouri (among others) became a defendant. The parties struck a deal that lasted until 1999 when they agreed to end Missouri’s remedial obligations. The Missouri Legislature ratified the parties’ settlement agreement and created a charter-school option. A group of charter schools complained to the Missouri Legislature, which altered the funding formula in 2006. The revised formula, part of Senate Bill 287, is what has led to the current dispute. The St. Louis Public School District and one of the plaintiffs asked the district court to enforce the settlement agreement by having Missouri reimburse it for the special-sales-tax revenue it had lost under the new funding formula. The district court sided with Missouri, and both sides appealed. Plaintiffs continued to believe that the St. Louis Public School District should receive all the special-sales-tax revenue. And Missouri argued that the desegregation-spending condition finds no support in the settlement agreement.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment but vacated the part requiring charter schools to spend those funds on “desegregation measures.” The court explained that there has been no “disproportionate adverse financial impact” on the St. Louis Public School District because it never had a right to keep all the special-sales-tax revenue for itself. Moreover, the court rejected the argument that allowing charter schools to spend their money as they see fit is inconsistent with the “purpose” of the settlement agreement. View "Deric Liddell v. State of Missouri" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former pretrial detainee in the custody of the Ozark County Sheriff’s Department, filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claiming that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs by denying him prescription medication. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that Defendants were subjectively aware of but disregarded a serious medical need. The facts construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff show that the “defendants, who are not medical personnel, substituted their controlled substance ‘policy’ and their schedule for administering or failing to administer medication for that of a treating physician.” Further, Defendants failed to administer or misadministered the medication to Plaintiff despite knowing a doctor prescribed them and despite Plaintiff’s repeated requests for his medication. Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, his “right to adequate treatment was clearly established, and the district court properly denied Defendants qualified immunity. View "Tracy Presson v. Darrin Reed" on Justia Law

This appeal concerns the scope of a landlord’s duty under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 to make “reasonable accommodations” for the “handicap” of a tenant. The City of Dubuque approved a measure allowing the local public housing authority to provide residents of mobile-home parks with housing choice vouchers that could be used to supplement their rent payments. Under this voucher program, the federal government provides funds to local public housing agencies, which in turn may distribute them to low-income tenants. As the rent on Plaintiff’s lot increased, she received a voucher and sought to use it to supplement her rent payments, but the companies declined to accept the voucher. Plaintiff requested an injunction requiring the companies to accept her housing choice voucher, and she sought damages for alleged emotional distress. Plaintiff also brought claims under state laws.   The Eighth Circuit vacated the injunction. The court concluded that while the statute requires a landlord to make reasonable accommodations that directly ameliorate the handicap of a tenant, the obligation does not extend to alleviating a tenant’s lack of money to pay rent. The court wrote that the term “reasonable accommodation” is not defined in the statute, but it was adopted against the backdrop of a predecessor statute and must be viewed in the context of a law that forbids discrimination “because of a handicap.” View "Suellen Klossner v. IADU Table Mound MHP, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota (University) following the elimination of the University’s men’s gymnastics team. He then sought a preliminary injunction to reinstate the team pending the outcome of the litigation. The district court denied the motion for the preliminary injunction, finding that Plaintiff’s delay in filing for the injunction undermined his claim of irreparable harm and that the other preliminary injunction factors favored the University. Plaintiff appealed the order denying the motion for the preliminary injunction. At issue on appeal is whether Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm, and second, whether he unreasonably delayed in bringing the claim.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that it has found that “delay is only significant if the harm has occurred and the parties cannot be returned to the status quo.” Here, the men’s collegiate gymnastics season begins in December at the earliest and January at the latest. The goal of a preliminary injunction is “to preserve the status quo until the merits are determined.” Given that the injunction motion was not filed until November 2021 and that the majority of the coaching staff and other gymnasts had left the University by this time, it would have been improbable, at best, for the team to have competed in the 2021–2022 season. Because Plaintiff sought an injunction after it would have been possible “to preserve the status quo,” the court held that the delay was unreasonable and that it consequently defeated Plaintiff’s goal of preventing irreparable harm. View "Evan Ng v. Board of Regents of the U of M" on Justia Law

The Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust Board of Trustees (“Board”) denied Plaintiff’s application for disability pension benefits under a plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Plaintiff argued the Board’s stated reason for denying his application was unreasonable and the Board violated its fiduciary duties. The district court granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the Board did not breach its fiduciary duty when it did not notify Plaintiff the Notice of Decision he submitted on appeal was insufficient. The initial letter the Board sent to Plaintiff noting the absence of the document clearly stated Plaintiff needed to submit a “Notice of Award.” When the plain language of the Plan and the Board’s other communications are consistent, there is no obvious unfairness to Plaintiff if his claim is denied because he submitted the wrong document. Further, the court found that there is no evidence the Board knew silence would harm Plaintiff because, in the May 2018 phone call, Plaintiff himself asked about how waiting to receive the pension would affect the annuity amount and ultimately requested estimates for retirement at later ages. Moreover, Plaintiff has not identified anything that should have caused the Board to know he misunderstood his rights. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff failed to establish a violation of the duty of loyalty. View "Adam Ruessler v. Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust" on Justia Law

Plaintiff began working for McDonnell Douglas in 1985. He stayed there until it merged with The Boeing Company (Boeing) in 1997. In 2017 and 2018, Plaintiff unsuccessfully applied for promotions within Boeing. Both times, the promotion was given to younger candidates who scored better in the interview. In 2017, the promotion went to an employee aged 33; in 2018, to one aged 34. Plaintiff alleged that Boeing discriminated against him on the basis of age, in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). Plaintiff brought two separate lawsuits, now consolidated, alleging age discrimination in relation to the 2018 opening and a claim for constructive discharge.  The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Boeing on both claims, holding that Plaintiff (1) failed to demonstrate a material dispute as to whether Boeing’s stated rationale for the hiring decision was a mere pretext for age discrimination and (2) failed to timely file a complaint with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights within six months of when his constructive-discharge claim accrued.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that Plaintiff failed to rebut the non-age-based, legitimate reasons offered by Boeing for its choice to hire the other applicant instead of him. Further, Plaintiff alleged that his termination paperwork started the clock, not his email. The court explained that Plaintiff gave his employer a little more than five weeks’ notice. But his claim still accrued then—on the day he gave notice, not the day he filed the paperwork. Because May 28, 2020, falls 185 days after November 25, 2019, Plaintiff’s complaint was untimely and thus barred. View "Jeff Bonomo v. The Boeing Company" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the adverse grant of summary judgment on her claim under the Equal Pay Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Daugherty Systems, Inc. (“Daugherty”) on the basis that Plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case because almost all her alleged comparators were either paid less than she was or did not perform equal work.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the pay disparity was justified by a legitimate factor other than sex. The court explained that Daugherty’s explanation for the pay differential—the differences in skillsets and experience and the desire to incentivize Plaintiff to grow in the position—is sufficient to satisfy its burden of proving the pay differential was based on a factor other than sex. The court wrote that because “no reasonable jury” could find other than in Daugherty’s favor on the affirmative defense, Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute for trial, and Daugherty has shown it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Tamara O'Reilly v. Daugherty Systems, Inc." on Justia Law