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

Jan Kuklenski was terminated by Medtronic USA, Inc. and subsequently filed a lawsuit in federal court, claiming that her termination violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) due to her disability. Kuklenski had worked for Medtronic since 1999 but had not resided in Minnesota. She occasionally traveled to Minnesota for work until the COVID-19 pandemic, after which she worked remotely. She went on medical leave in June 2021, and after her initial three-month leave expired, Medtronic filled her position and formally terminated her in December 2021.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment in favor of Medtronic, concluding that Kuklenski could not bring claims under the MHRA because she did not meet the statutory definition of an “employee,” which requires either residency or physical presence in Minnesota. The court found that Kuklenski had not been physically present in Minnesota for almost two years before her termination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, agreeing that the MHRA’s definition of “employee” requires some degree of physical presence in Minnesota. The court found that the statutory language was clear and unambiguous, requiring that an individual must either reside or work within the physical limits of Minnesota to be protected under the MHRA. The court also denied Kuklenski’s request to certify the question to the Minnesota Supreme Court, noting that the case did not present a close question of state law and that certification was not appropriate given the circumstances.The Eighth Circuit held that the MHRA’s definition of “employee” necessitates physical presence in Minnesota, and since Kuklenski had not been physically present in the state for nearly two years, she did not qualify as an employee under the Act. View "Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor filed a lawsuit against Levering Regional Health Care Center and Reliant Care Management Company for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The suit alleged that Levering deducted 30 minutes of pay for employees' meal breaks, despite knowing that employees routinely worked through these breaks. An investigation revealed that many employees did not receive lunch breaks or had them interrupted, and some were unaware of the policy to report missed breaks for compensation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Levering's motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that Levering did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the unpaid overtime work due to the employees' failure to use the established reporting policy. Additionally, the court found that the Secretary did not adequately establish the amount of overtime owed.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 there was sufficient evidence to suggest that Levering may have failed to effectively communicate its policy to employees, as evidenced by the lack of time sheets submitted during the audit period compared to a later period. The court also found that the Secretary provided enough evidence to estimate the amount of unpaid overtime work, meeting the burden of showing the extent of the work as a matter of just and reasonable inference. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Micone v. Levering Regional HCC, L.LC." on Justia Law

Judy Brown, a biracial woman, was hired by Conagra Brands, Inc. in October 1997. After a workplace injury in 2015, she became disabled and filed a workers' compensation claim in 2017. Conagra temporarily transferred her to a different position as an accommodation and continued paying her at the higher rate until July 2020, when her work restrictions became permanent, and her pay was reduced. Following the death of a colleague, Conagra posted job openings, and Brown applied for a position but was not selected. She was assigned to less favorable shifts and subsequently filed discrimination charges. Brown was fired in December 2021 and sued Conagra, alleging race and disability discrimination, retaliation, and violation of Nebraska common law.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted Conagra’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Brown did not challenge the district court’s finding that her race and disability discrimination claims based on the July 2020 pay reduction were time-barred.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Brown failed to plead sufficient facts to support her claims. Specifically, she did not provide enough details to infer race discrimination, did not plausibly allege a disability under the ADA or NFEPA, and did not establish a causal connection for her retaliation claims. Additionally, the court found that Brown did not state a plausible claim for common law unlawful retaliation, as she did not allege any immediate precipitating events or facts that could infer a causal nexus between her workers' compensation claim and the adverse employment actions. View "Brown v. Conagra Brands, Inc." on Justia Law

Barton Hankins was hired by Crain Automotive Holdings, LLC in 2019 as Chief Operating Officer and was offered a deferred compensation plan (DCP). After four years, Hankins resigned and sought compensation under the DCP, which Crain denied. Hankins then filed a lawsuit under the Employee Income Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to claim his benefits. The DCP stipulated that Hankins could earn a percentage of Crain’s fair market value upon his exit, with full vesting at five years. Having served four years, Hankins was entitled to 80% of the benefits.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted judgment in favor of Hankins, concluding that the DCP did not require the creation of an Employment Agreement or a Confidentiality, Noncompete, and Nonsolicitation Agreement for enforceability. The court found that Crain’s claims of misconduct by Hankins were unsubstantiated and awarded Hankins attorney’s fees, determining that Crain’s conduct was sufficiently culpable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Crain’s interpretation of the DCP was unreasonable. The court found that the DCP’s Article 4, which mentioned the Employment and Confidentiality Agreements, did not create a condition precedent but rather a condition subsequent. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees, noting that Crain’s actions lacked merit and were raised only after Hankins sought his vested compensation. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings. View "Hankins v. Crain Automotive Holdings, LLC" 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

Betty Grooms, a Missouri clerk of court, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Alice Bell and Judge Steven Privette, alleging violations of her First Amendment rights through discrimination and retaliation, and violations of her substantive due process rights. Grooms, a Republican, had defeated Bell, a Democrat, in an election for Circuit Clerk. Bell, who retained her job under Grooms, later married Privette, a Republican judge. Tensions arose when Bell and Privette were uncooperative with Grooms, leading to Bell's resignation and announcement to run for Circuit Clerk. Privette ordered Grooms to prepare detailed spreadsheets, which he repeatedly rejected, and initiated a contempt prosecution against her, which was eventually dismissed by the Missouri Supreme Court.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri dismissed Grooms's claims, ruling that the defendants did not violate her clearly established First Amendment rights and did not violate her substantive due process rights. The court found that the defendants' actions did not constitute adverse employment actions under clearly established law and that Grooms did not suffer a serious deprivation of a protected interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Bell and Privette were entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim, as Grooms failed to show that their actions constituted adverse employment actions under clearly established law. Additionally, the court found that Grooms's substantive due process claim was inadequate, as she did not demonstrate a serious deprivation of a protected interest. The court concluded that the defendants' conduct did not shock the conscience and did not violate Grooms's substantive due process rights. View "Grooms v. Privette" on Justia Law

Marcus Todd, a state employee in Minnesota, alleged that a union violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by deducting union dues from his paycheck without his consent. Todd joined the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees in 2014 and authorized dues deductions. In 2018, a new authorization card was allegedly signed electronically with Todd's name, which he claims was forged. After the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, Todd attempted to resign from the union and stop dues deductions, but the union continued until May 2021, citing an annual opt-out period.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Todd's federal claims, stating that he voluntarily agreed to the dues deductions before Janus and was contractually bound to the opt-out period. The court also found that the union did not act under color of state law regarding the alleged forgery and dismissed Todd's claims for prospective relief as moot. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Todd's state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Todd's claims failed due to the lack of state action, as the union's actions were based on private agreements, not state statutes. The court referenced Hoekman v. Education Minnesota and Burns v. School Service Employees Union Local 284, which established that private agreements for dues deductions do not constitute state action. The court also found that the alleged forgery did not establish state action, as it was a private misuse of state law. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Todd v. AFSCME" on Justia Law

An employee, Brandon Smith, was fired by Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCSR) in 2018. His union, the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers, Transportation Division (SMART-TD), challenged the dismissal under the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) and the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The dispute went to arbitration, and in 2022, the National Railroad Adjustment Board (Board) overturned Smith's discharge, ordering his reinstatement with full benefits and back pay without deductions for outside earnings.The district court enforced the arbitration award, rejecting KCSR's argument that the award was ambiguous and required clarification. The court ordered KCSR to provide Smith with back pay without deductions and vacation benefits, and also awarded attorney fees to SMART-TD. KCSR appealed, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction and should have remanded the case to the Board for interpretation of the ambiguous award.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court erred in enforcing the award without remanding it to the Board for clarification, particularly regarding the vacation benefits, which were not explicitly addressed in the award. The court noted that the district court overstepped by interpreting the CBA, which is outside its jurisdiction under the RLA. The court also acknowledged that the Board had since clarified the back pay issue, rendering that part of the dispute moot.The Eighth Circuit reversed and vacated the district court's judgments, including the award of attorney fees, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court emphasized the need for the Board to interpret any ambiguities in the arbitration award. View "Assoc.of Sheet Metal Workers v. K.C. Southern Railway" on Justia Law

Dr. Tara Gustilo, an Asian American obstetrician-gynecologist of Filipino descent, was demoted from her position as Chair of the OBGYN Department at Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc. (HHS) in April 2021. Following her demotion, she filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and subsequently sued HHS, alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), as well as a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment in favor of HHS, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the race discrimination, retaliation, and First Amendment claims. The court concluded that Dr. Gustilo failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination and that there was no evidence she opposed an unlawful employment practice. Additionally, the court found no material fact dispute regarding whether the HHS Board considered her Facebook posts in its decision to demote her.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim, finding that there was a material fact dispute regarding whether the HHS Board ratified the MEC's decision and the basis for it, which included consideration of Dr. Gustilo's Facebook posts. The court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the posts were protected speech and to apply the Pickering balancing test.The court declined to review the district court's summary judgment rulings on the Title VII and MHRA claims at this time, as they are now interlocutory. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Gustilo v. Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc." on Justia Law

Estella Morris, an employee of the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System (CAVHS), filed civil-rights claims against her employer, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation. Morris, who is black, claimed she was denied a promotion to Chief of Social Work Service in favor of a white colleague, Anne Wright, despite having veteran preference. Morris also alleged that her pay upgrade request was sabotaged by her supervisor, Michael Ballard, in retaliation for her previous discrimination complaints.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment in favor of CAVHS. The court found that Morris had established a prima facie case of race discrimination but concluded that CAVHS had provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for promoting Wright—her more favorable references. The court held that Morris failed to show that this reason was a pretext for racial discrimination. Regarding the retaliation claim, the court found no evidence that Ballard's actions were causally linked to Morris's protected activities or that the person who denied the pay upgrade was aware of her discrimination complaints.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that Morris did not demonstrate a causal connection between her race and the promotion decision. The court also found that Morris failed to show that Ballard's alleged sabotage of her pay upgrade request was linked to her protected activities. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that CAVHS's actions were motivated by racial discrimination or retaliation. View "Morris v. Department of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law