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

Plaintiff filed suit against current and former members of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, alleging that adverse employment actions were taken against him in retaliation for his protected First Amendment speech.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, holding that plaintiff's non-testimonial speech was not entitled to First Amendment protection. In this case, although it was undisputed that plaintiff spoke as a private citizen and his speech was of public concern, the highway patrol has shown sufficient evidence of disruption to the efficiency of its operations. Under the Pickering balancing test, the court held that the factors weighed in favor of the highway patrol's interest in efficiency and indicated that plaintiff's speech activity was more likely than not impeding his ability to perform his job duties as a police officer. Therefore, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity regarding plaintiff's speech to the family of the victim of a drowning accident, on social media, and to the news reporter. The court also held that the remaining testimonial speech was not a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment actions against plaintiff. Finally, plaintiff's civil conspiracy and failure to supervise claims failed as a matter of law. View "Henry v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Dolgencorp's Auxvasse, Missouri store employed six people. Price, a sales associate, contacted the Union. Myers, an organizing director, obtained authorization cards and filed an election petition. The Union and Dolgencorp agreed to the terms of an election to be held on December 8, 2017. On November 17, 2017, Myers created a group text message conversation between himself, Price, and employees Miles and Durlin. Through the election date, Miles and Durlin actively participated in group conversations and never expressed opposition to Union representation. The six eligible employees voted, 4-2, to unionize. After the election, Miles and Durlin told Dolgencorp’s vice president they voted in favor of the Union but that Price and Myers pressured them using threats and bribes. Dolgencorp filed objections, alleging Price acted as an agent of the Union and engaged in misconduct that materially affected the election result. The NLRB certified the Union as the exclusive representative. Dolgencorp refused to recognize the Union.The Eighth Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that Dolgencorp engaged in an unfair labor practice (National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5)). Conclusions that Price's comments were not meant to be intimidating or to influence witness testimony and that Price was not acting as a union agent or with apparent authority were supported by substantial evidence. An alleged tire-slashing threat occurred outside the critical period; the offer of an unconditional $100 loan did not substantially impair an employee's free choice in the election. View "Dolgencorp, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Paskert, an Auto$mart sales associate, was supervised by Burns. Bjorkland was also a sales associate. Paskert alleges she was prevented from completing her training. Burns frequently lost his temper with everyone, he ridiculed and screamed at his employees, he referred to female customers using derogatory names, and threw objects. Bjorkland and Paskert heard Burns remark that he “never should have hired a woman” and wonder whether he could make Paskert cry. Burns openly bragged at work about his purported sexual conquests. Bjorkland witnessed Burns attempt to rub Paskert’s shoulders. Burns stated, “Oh, if you weren’t married ... I could have you.” Paskert and Bjorkland reported these incidents to the Director. After a few months on the job, Paskert was demoted. Three days later, she was discharged for insubordination, a poor sales record and use of profanity. The Iowa Civil Rights Commission issued a right-to-sue letter. Paskert’s federal complaint cited sex discrimination based on a hostile work environment and retaliation.The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Burns’s alleged behavior, while reprehensible and improper, was not so severe or pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of Paskert’s employment. Paskert failed to exhaust her retaliation claim. Because hostile work environment claims are separate from sex discrimination claims, and because Paskert failed to make any separate arguments regarding sex discrimination in her briefs, the claim was not before the court. View "Paskert v. Burns" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of UPS, holding that plaintiff's action alleging that he was fired because of his race in violation of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 was preempted under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). In this case, plaintiff's claim depended on interpreting the collective bargaining agreement provisions, and thus was completely preempted under the LMRA. Therefore, the district court did not err by denying plaintiff's motion to remand to state court or in granting judgment for UPS. View "Johnson v. Humphreys" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted a petition for review of the ARB's final decision ruling that CP violated the whistleblower retaliation provisions of the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) when it suspended a locomotive engineer for his untimely reporting of a "work-related personal injury" or a "hazardous safety or security condition." The court agreed with CP's argument that the ARB's analysis of the contributing factor element of the employee's prima facie case used a legal causation standard contrary to controlling Eighth Circuit precedents.The court held that the ARB's reasoning was both contrary to the court's governing precedents and fatally flawed; the FRSA prohibits a rail carrier from discriminating against an employee for engaging in protected activity; the employee does not have to conclusively prove retaliatory motive but must show more than temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse action; and the court expressly rejected the contention that, when an employer learns about an employee's conduct warranting discipline in a protected injury report, the report and the discipline are "inextricably intertwined" and this factual connection is "sufficient to establish the contributing-factor element of his prima facie case." Because the ARB did not attempt to apply the appropriate Eighth Circuit legal standard, the court remanded to the ARB with instructions. View "Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corp. v. U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's amended complaint against TAW Enterprises, alleging that TAW retaliated against plaintiff in contravention of public policy established by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and breached its employment contract with plaintiff.The court held that neither this court or the district court could properly exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this action because removal premised on diversity jurisdiction would violate the forum-defendant rule, a jurisdictional defect in this circuit, and plaintiff's amended complaint did not present a federal question. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to the district court to remand the case to state court. View "Holbein v. Baxter Chrysler Jeep, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an employee of 4T Construction, filed suit against McKenzie under both negligence-based and strict liability law principles after he was seriously injured while replacing a high voltage transmission line for a project.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for McKenzie, holding that the parties' contract clearly and unambiguously stated that 4T was retained as an independent contractor. In this case, the parties' contract stated that 4T was an independent contractor that performs its work without supervision by McKenzie. The court held that McKenzie did not retain control over 4T's and plaintiff's actions. Finally, the North Dakota Supreme Court has declined to hold a utility company strictly liable for injuries and damages from contact with high tension power lines, and McKenzie was not liable under a theory of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities. View "Meyer v. McKenzie Electric Cooperative, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an assistant professor at Macalester College, filed suit against the college after she was terminated for violating the college's policies on student-teacher relationships.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims for discriminatory discharge based on disability under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The court held that plaintiff's claim regarding the departing provost was raised for the first time on appeal and therefore could not be considered by the court; the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint to add claims under the Family Medical Leave Act was untimely and futile; and, even if plaintiff made a prima face case of discrimination, the court concluded on de novo review that the college articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff based on her sexual relationship with a former student. Finally, the court held that plaintiff's claim for failure to accommodate her disability under section 504 failed as a matter of law. View "Naca v. Macalester College" on Justia Law

The union appealed the district court's order denying the union's motion to compel arbitration of the grievances regarding early retirement benefits for employees terminated as the result of a plant closing.Applying de novo review, the Eighth Circuit held that the grievance, on its face, stated a claim that Trane violated a specific provision of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by not providing a bargained-for benefit, a benefit Trane reconfirmed in the Memorandum of Agreement. The court held that this grievance involved the interpretation of the CBA and was therefore arbitrable. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment as to the bridge grievance. However, the court affirmed the order denying the union's motion to compel arbitration of the temporary pension supplement benefit grievance, holding that it was not arbitrable because it was governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, rather than the Labor Management Relations Act or the CBA. The panel remanded for further proceedings. View "International Union v. Trane U.S. Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Wisconsin Central in an action brought by plaintiff for unlawful retaliation under the Federal Railroad Safety Act. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's request for the information defendant's expert acquired in preparation for trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4). The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in blocking a deposition of Wisconsin Central's counsel about her conversations with other employees and whether plaintiff's employment record caused his termination; the information was privileged; and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the protective order.The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Wisconsin Central because plaintiff did not make a prima facie case of retaliation under the Act. In this case, plaintiff failed to raise an inference of intentional retaliation prompted by any of his three specified acts, and no reasonable factfinder could infer a retaliatory motive. View "Smith-Bunge v. Wisconsin Central, Ltd." on Justia Law