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

Plaintiff sued Advance Auto Parts, claiming unlawful discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted Advance Auto’s motion for summary judgment.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that here, unlike Green v. Dillard’s Inc., there is no genuine dispute whether Advance Auto acted negligently or recklessly under Section 213. As for Section 213(a), Plaintiff does not allege that Advance Auto made improper orders or regulations. It had a written policy prohibiting discrimination based on any protected status; all employees had to read and familiarize themselves with this policy and complete annual training. The court further explained that Advance Auto is not liable under Section 1981 for discrimination based on its employee’s conduct. Plaintiff’s claims for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress fail under respondeat superior and ratification. View "Nicolas Tashman v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff opposed a new collective-bargaining agreement that passed by a 119-vote margin. Plaintiff sued the union for breach of its duty of fair representation and a violation of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. At their core, these claims are about whether the union hoodwinked members into ratifying the new collective-bargaining agreement by concealing what would happen to the 30-and-out benefit. The district court dismissed the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act claim, denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, and granted summary judgment to the union on the fair-representation claim. On appeal, Plaintiff alleged that the union concealed key information, but only nine members said it would have made a difference.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to provide other evidence that the outcome of the vote would have changed. The court reasoned that the ratification vote was overwhelmingly in favor: 228 to 109, a 119-vote margin. Plaintiff offers only nine members who would have voted “no” if they had known about the elimination of the 30-and-out benefit. Even assuming each would have voted the way he thinks, the agreement still would have passed by a wide margin. The court wrote that no reasonable jury could conclude that the union’s alleged bad-faith conduct was the but-for cause of the union’s ratification of the collective-bargaining agreement. View "Matthew Nagel v. United Food and Com. Workers" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, seeking to purchase firearms, successfully petitioned a Minnesota state court to restore his right to possess firearms under the Minnesota restoration of rights statute. He was then granted the right to purchase and a permit to carry by local Minnesota governments. But no federally licensed dealer will sell him a firearm. Federal law will not let them do that, the FBI advised Plaintiff, because “the Minnesota Restoration of Rights does not restore federal firearm rights for felony convictions listed on your Iowa state record.” Invoking the civil remedy Congress created in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Plaintiff then filed this civil action against the United States under 18 U.S.C. Section 925A, seeking an order allowing him to purchase firearms and directing the FBI to correct the allegedly erroneous information that he is ineligible to possess a firearm in Minnesota. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that under federal law, Plaintiff may not possess a firearm if he is a person “convicted in any court” of a qualifying crime.” His prior Minnesota and Iowa felony convictions both qualify. Beecham teaches that, in evaluating whether rights have been restored, we look to the “law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held.” Lowe held that “only the convicting jurisdiction can restore civil rights.” Therefore, the district court properly held that the restoration of civil rights in Minnesota applied only to Plaintiff’s Minnesota convictions. As the Iowa convictions have not been restored, under federal law, they continue to bar him from possessing a firearm. View "Brent Smith v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was fired by John Deere & Co.; he sued Deere for failing to accommodate his disability and discriminating against him in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA). The district court granted summary judgment to Deere. Plaintiff appealed the district court’s judgment on his disability and failure to accommodate claims.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiff cannot make a prima facie case for failure to accommodate because he never requested an accommodation at the relevant time. In fact, Deere encouraged Plaintiff to request accommodations and accommodated him before when he asked. And when Plaintiff returned to work in September 2019, he had been cleared of all restrictions. Because Plaintiff has not shown that Deere knew he needed an accommodation on his return to work, his claim fails. Further, the court wrote that Plaintiff has not provided any direct evidence of discrimination that “shows a specific link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the challenged decision, sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable fact finder that an illegitimate criterion actually motivated the adverse employment action.” Finally, the court held that Plaintiff’s suggestion that his actions weren’t serious enough to merit his termination “merely questions the soundness of [Deere’s] judgment, and does not demonstrate pretext for discrimination.” View "Michael Winters v. Deere & Company" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued her former employers, Rowley Memorial Masonic Home and Rowley Masonic Assisted Living Community, LLC (collectively, Rowley), as well as the Administrator, and Director of Nursing, for age discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Plaintiff argued that the district court erred by denying her motion to compel and granting summary judgment to Defendants. She also moved to certify a question of law to the Iowa Supreme Court and to supplement the record under seal.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, denied the motion to certify, and granted the motion to supplement. The court held that Plaintiff provided no basis for her speculation that Lemke’s additional answers would yield evidence of age discrimination. In light of the likely minimal relevance of the investigator’s additional answers and the fact that at least some of the information Plaintiff seeks was discoverable from other sources, the court wrote it perceives no abuse of the district court’s discretion and cannot say that its denial of the motion resulted in fundamental unfairness to her. Further, the court held that because Plaintiff cannot create an inference that Defendants’ decisions were motivated by her age, she has failed to make a prima facie case of age discrimination View "Inge Smothers v. Rowley Mem. Masonic Home" on Justia Law

The United States Air Force required all service members to be vaccinated against COVID-19, subject to certain exemptions. In this case, thirty-six members of the Air Force, Air Force Reserve, or Air National Guard sued the Secretary of Defense and others, alleging that the government’s denial of their requests for religious exemptions violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Airmen sought a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the Air Force from taking steps to discharge any of the Airmen and from denying travel, training, or other career opportunities to them. The district court denied the motion and later dismissed much of the case, although one aspect of the complaint remains pending in the district court. The Airmen appealed the order denying the request for preliminary injunctive relief.
The Eighth Circuit, in light of intervening developments that have granted the Airmen all of the relief requested, dismissed the appeal. The court explained that none of the Airmen is subject to a COVID-19 vaccination requirement, and no adverse action may be taken against the Airmen for refusing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. A statutory change that discontinues a challenged practice usually makes an appeal moot. View "Tanner Roth v. Lloyd Austin, III" on Justia Law

Philander Smith College fired Plaintiff after she referred to a student as “retarded” for using a cell phone during class. She sued for sex discrimination, retaliation, and breach of contract. After granting summary judgment to the college on the first two claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the third.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that Plaintiff has not put forward sufficient evidence of pretext. So summary judgment marks the end of the road for her sex-discrimination claim. Further, the court reasoned that even if the conditions were intolerable, in other words, Plainitff’s own role in provoking these incidents undermines the claim that the college created a workplace full of discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult. Moreover, the court explained once Plaintiff’s federal claims were gone, the district court had no obligation to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Arkansas breach-of-contract claim. View "Patricia Walker-Swinton v. Philander Smith College" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Minnesota prisoner, sued several officials of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him from an attack by a fellow inmate. The district court granted summary judgment for the officials. Defendant appealed the dismissal of his Eighth Amendment claims.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court agreed with the district court that the evidence is insufficient to show that any of the defendant officials subjectively concluded that Plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious harm and then failed to respond reasonably to it. The unrebutted evidence is that the two voting officials on the incompatibility committee considered incident reports and other relevant information but decided that the situation did not rise to the level of incompatibility—that is, they concluded that the evidence did not indicate a risk of serious bodily injury to an offender. This means that the officials did not draw the subjective inference that there existed a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff. The officials predicted incorrectly, but they were not deliberately indifferent for the purposes of the Eighth Amendment. View "David Hodges v. Minnesota Dept. Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant, Baptist Health, on her sex-discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, constructive-discharge, and negligent-retention claims. After the individual defendant was dismissed as a defendant, Baptist Health moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted its motion.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court first explained that here, Plaintiff presented no evidence that Baptist Health intended to force her to quit. Rather, the record indicates that Baptist Health tried to retain Plaintiff by giving her paid administrative leave, offering to relocate her to a different location, and offering to transfer her to a new department. Thus, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Baptist Health on this claim.   Second, the court held that Plaintiff’s sex-discrimination and retaliation claims fail because she has not suffered an adverse employment action. Baptist Health offered for Plaintiff to keep her same job at any one of three locations or to transfer departments. The court wrote that Plaintiff has not shown that transferring to another department would produce a material employment disadvantage.   Third, the court found that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Baptist Health on this claim because there is no evidence that the alleged discrimination was based on sex. Finally, the court found that the evidence does not suggest that Baptist Health subjected her to any unreasonable risk of harm. View "Courtnay Bell v. Baptist Health" on Justia Law

Plaintiff fled when Defendant police officer stopped him based on an outstanding warrant for fifth-degree theft. At the nearby police station, Plaintiff briefly refused to obey Defendant’s command to exit the squad car and proceed to the station for booking. When the handcuffed Plaintiff finally exited the car and stood up, Defendant struck him with his fist on the back of the head and neck. Plaintiff brought this action for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and asserted pendent Iowa state law claims for tortious assault and battery. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing both claims on the ground that the force used was objectively reasonable. Alternatively, the court ruled that Church was entitled to qualified immunity on the federal Section 1983 claim because any constitutional violation was not clearly established. Plaintiff appealed.   The Eighth Circuit concluded that genuine issues of disputed facts preclude a determination, on this summary judgment record, of whether the alleged unlawful use of excessive force was objectively reasonable and, if not, whether the violation was clearly established at the time of the incident in question. Accordingly, the court reversed the dismissal of all claims, including Plaintiff’s pendent state law claims. View "Derek Westwater v. Kevin Church" on Justia Law