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

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation leading to wrongful termination. The Eighth Circuit rejected plaintiff's claim that the district court failed to consider her status as a pro se litigant; sovereign immunity barred plaintiff's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; and 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 83; assuming that plaintiff met her burden of establishing a prima facie case of race and gender discrimination under Title VII, the university has offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her (failure to report for work and the need to fill her position); and plaintiff's claim of discrimination was rejected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bunch v. University of AR Board of Trustees" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the school district, alleging that the district and others violated his due process rights by declining to renew his coaching contract solely on the basis of parental complaints. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the due process claims. The court held that the 2013 amendment to Minnesota Statue 122A.33 did not grant plaintiff a property interest in the renewal of his coaching contract. View "McGuire v. Independent School District No. 833" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former jail administrator, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Peace Officer Discipline Procedures Act (PODPA), alleging claims related to his termination. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the County and held that, regardless of whether plaintiff held a constitutionally protected interest in his employment, the process surrounding his termination satisfied the Due Process Clause. The court also held that plaintiff was not entitled to the additional protections of PODPA given his actual duties as Assistant Jail Administrator and given the fact that the County neither charged him with the duties of general law enforcement nor utilized his services for those purposes. View "Pena v. Kindler" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit held that MikLin did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and (3), because the means used by the disciplined employees here were so disloyal as to exceed their right to engage in concerted activities protected by the NLRA, as construed in a controlling Supreme Court precedent, NLRB v. Local Union No. 1229, IBEW, 346 U.S. 464 (1953) ("Jefferson Standard"). In this case, the employees' attack was sharp, proceeding in a manner reasonably calculated to harm the company's reputation and reduce its income. The posters, press releases, and letter were an effective campaign to convince customers that eating Jimmy John's sandwiches might cause them to become sick. Therefore, the court declined to enforce the determination that MikLin violated the Act by disciplining and discharging those employees and by soliciting removal of the unprotected posters. The court enforced the remainder of the Order as so modified. View "MikLin Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the union had violated the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) by failing to accommodate his disability, by discriminating against him based on his disability, and by retaliating against him for reporting his disability and seeking accommodation. The district court determined that the claims were preempted under section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and that the statute of limitations had expired on those federal claims. The Eighth Circuit held that, because plaintiff's state-law claims were not completely preempted by section 301(a) of the LMRA or section 9(a) of the NLRA, the district court lacked removal jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Markham v. Wertin" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's employment claim alleging retaliatory termination. The court held that a reasonable jury could conclude that her protected action was the but-for cause of her termination. In this case, it was undisputed that plaintiff's letter complaining of unequal pay based on her sex was a protected act and that she suffered an adverse employment action. View "Donathan v. Oakley Grain, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order compelling arbitration and dismissing plaintiff's case without prejudice where he alleged violations of minimum wage laws, as well as fraud. In this case, plaintiff signed a Volunteer Release, Waiver and Indemnification Agreement when he volunteered as a concession worker for a fundraiser. The court held that the agreement was not unconscionable under Missouri law because the agreement was easy to understand, with no evidence that it was non-negotiable. Furthermore, the agreement did not lack consideration where the consideration was that plaintiff was giving up his right to sue in return for his opportunity to volunteer and DNCS's contribution to Washington University, something neither was legally bound to do. Finally, the underlying factual allegations were covered by the arbitration provision. View "Leonard v. Delaware North Companies Sport Service, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suits against Hiland Dairy, alleging race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and Nebraska law. The Eighth Circuit held that, because plaintiffs failed to produce direct evidence of discrimination, the court must apply the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Applying the framework, the court held that Hiland Dairy satisfied its burden by articulating and presenting evidence of a legitimate and indiscriminatory reason for firing them. In this case, Hiland Dairy cited "theft of time" and dishonest conduct as reasons for termination. The court rejected plaintiffs' claim that they were disciplined more severely than similarly-situated white employees because the reasons Hiland Dairy gave were significant and sufficient distinctions making the situations not similarly situated in all relevant respects. The court rejected plaintiffs' remaining contentions and affirmed the judgment. View "Edwards v. Hiland Roberts Dairy" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against APS, seeking unpaid overtime wages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA), Ark. Code Ann. 11-4-201 et seq. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of defendants. Reviewing the trial evidence under a deferential standard, the court applied the economic realities test and held that evidence at trial was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that plaintiff was an independent contractor under the FLSA. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding it would permit questions addressing the nature of the parties' relative investments but would not allow plaintiff to billboard large numbers that would create the danger of unfair prejudice. View "Karlson v. Action Process Service, etc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied the hospital's petition for review of the Board's determination that it violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by interfering with nonemployee union representatives' use of its cafeteria; the Board's determination that it violated section 8(a)(5) by unilaterally changing its cafeteria access rules; and the Board's determination that the hospital violated section 8(a)(1) when it engaged in surveillance of two nonunion representatives. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that the hospital violated the Act when it prohibited an employee from wearing union insignia in the hospital's atrium on the day of picketing. Therefore, the court denied the hospital's petition for review as to this issue. However, the Board incorrectly determined that the hospital violated the Act by telling two nonemployees that they were prohibited from wearing union shirts in the facility. Accordingly, the court granted the cross application for enforcement in part and granted the petition for review in part. View "North Memorial Health Care v. NLRB" on Justia Law