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

FedEx petitioned for review of the Board's orders forcing it to bargain with the unions, arguing that the Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile standard violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 159(a); circuit law; and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. Determining that the court has jurisdiction to review FedEx's claims, the court concluded that the first step in the analysis described by Specialty Healthcare, in which the Board analyzes the union's proposed bargaining unit under the traditional community of interest test, is not a departure from the Board's precedent and is consistent with the requirements of section 9(b) of the NLRA; because the Specialty Healthcare framework does not make the extent of union organization "controlling," the court concluded that it does not violate section 9(c)(5); and the Board did not violate the APA by announcing the overwhelming community of interest standard in the course of adjudicating Specialty Healthcare rather than by notice and comment rulemaking. In this case, the court concluded that the Board's decisions to certify bargaining units consisting of the road and city drivers were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court denied FedEx's petitions for review and granted the Board's cross-petitions for enforcement. View "FedEx Freight v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an independent lease truck driver for FMC Transport, filed suit against FMC Transport, alleging racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of FMC Transport. FMC Transport's accident review board had concluded that plaintiff's accident was preventable and the company later terminated him. Although plaintiff is a member of a protected class and he did suffer an adverse employment action, and even if he did meet FMC Transport's legitimate expectations, the court concluded that he failed to present evidence that supports an inference of discrimination. Further, plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of racial discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework, because he has not shown that the circumstances of his termination gave rise to an inference of discrimination. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Macklin v. FMC Transport, Inc." on Justia Law

Higgins and the Union filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Missouri law against the District, alleging violations of the United States and Missouri Constitutions and state law. The district court dismissed the federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and declined to exercise jurisdiction as to the state law claims. The court concluded that the Union does not have standing in this case to pursue its claims on behalf of its members. In regard to Higgins, the court concluded that Higgins failed to state an equal protection claim where the District explicitly reserved the right to award the contract at issue in its best interest, and to select a bidder other than the lowest. The court also concluded that Higgins failed to state a claim for deprivation of due process where, under Missouri law, an unsuccessful bidder obtains no property right in the award of a construction contract, and Higgins failed to state a violation of the First Amendment where it does not provide any plausible account of how the District interfered with Higgins's ability to associate with the Union or with its employees who are members of the Union. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Higgins Electric, Inc. v. O'Fallon Fire Protection Dist." on Justia Law

The Board issued a complaint alleging that ConAgra violated the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), 29 U.S.C. 151-169, by censuring an employee for soliciting union membership and by posting a sign prohibiting discussion of unions during working time. General Counsel for the Board moved for a default judgment against ConAgra under a settlement agreement to an earlier dispute. The ALJ ruled in favor of the Union on both allegations. The court adopted the Board's findings of fact that accord with the employee's testimony. The court held that in answering the factual question of whether a statement amounts to solicitation of union support, neither the presentation of a card for signature at the time nor the duration of the conversation are determinative. The court concluded that the Board's novel construction of the Act in this case is unreasonable, contrary to the policies of the Act, and therefore an incorrect application of the law. The court concluded that there is not substantial evidence supporting the finding that the employee did not engage in solicitation where the Board cites no evidence that the employee was merely providing information divorced from an effort to obtain signed authorization cards. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's conclusion that ConAgra violated the Act when it censured the employee for violating its no-solicitation policy. The court concluded that the Board's conclusion that ConAgra violated the Act by posting an overbroad no-solicitation rule is supported by substantial evidence. Because the court declined to enforce the Board's order as to the warning, it refrained from enforcing the default judgment and remanded the case to the Board to determine whether the posted-letter violation constitutes grounds for granting the General Counsel's motion. View "ConAgra Foods v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985 against the City, code inspector Peterson, and chief code inspector Denker, and various other defendants, alleging federal and state constitutional violations, and that defendants conspired to deter her from seeking judicial relief from their conduct and to deprive her of equal protection of the law and equal privileges and immunities under the law. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The court concluded that plaintiff's allegations of sexual harassment against Peterson failed to state a claim of municipal liability under section 1983; plaintiff failed to state a claim with respect to the alleged actions of Denker and the unidentified Jane and John Does - either in connection with her sexual harassment claim against Petersen or as an independent claim that these defendants violated her federally protected rights; and plaintiff failed to state a claim independent of Petersen’s alleged sexual harassment. Because plaintiff’s complaint contained no facts showing that Denker or any unnamed City employee violated her constitutional rights, the court did not reach whether Denker, as chief code inspector, was a policymaking official or whether his role in the alleged conduct permits an inference that the City adopted a policy targeting plaintiff. Further, plaintiff failed to allege a conspiracy under section 1985 because the City could not conspire with itself through its agents acting within the scope of their employment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kelly v. City of Omaha" on Justia Law

The Board filed a complaint alleging that Seedorff had violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5), by repudiating a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between QBA and Local 150 to which Seedorff has agreed to be bound. The ALJ ruled that Seedorff did indeed violate sections 8(a)(1) and (5) by repudiating a valid pre-hire CBA and by failing to abide by the hiring hall and benefit provisions of the contract. The Board affirmed the ALJ's analysis. The court denied enforcement and vacated the Board's Decision and Order, concluding that the Board's analysis was contrary to the NLRA and pre-hire CBAs as construed in prior judicial decisions and the Board's own precedent. View "NLRB v. Seedorff Masonry, Inc." on Justia Law

Parsons petitioned for review of the Board's order, concluding that Parsons engaged in an unfair labor practice in violation of sections 8(a)(1) and (5), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5), of the National Labor Relations Act (Act), 29 U.S.C. 151-169. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Parsons violated the Act by unilaterally modifying its employee-break policy without notifying the Union or affording it an opportunity to bargain. The Board also reasonably rejected Parsons’s contentions that the 2012 Break Policy merely clarified the 2005 Break Policy and existing practice. Finally, the court rejected Parsons’s assertion that it was authorized to unilaterally change its employee-break policy because it lacked authority to bargain directly with the Union. The court denied the petition for review and enforced the Board's cross-petition for enforcement. View "Parsons Electric, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, Bob Evans, alleging employment discrimination in violation of federal and Missouri law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Bob Evans. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying judicial estoppel to bar plaintiff's claims where, pursuant to the New Hampshire v. Maine factors, plaintiff took inconsistent positions between his bankruptcy case and this case; the bankruptcy court, by discharging plaintiff's unsecured debts, adopted the position that his discrimination claims did not exist; and plaintiff could have derived an unfair advantage in the bankruptcy proceedings by concealing his claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Jones v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a white man, filed suit against officials of the St. Louis Police Department, alleging race discrimination and conspiracy to discriminate when an African-American woman was chosen for the position in which plaintiff applied. A jury found in favor of plaintiff on his claims against three of his superiors (Defendants Muxo, Harris, and Isom). Defendants appealed. The court concluded that materially different working conditions provided sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action. Because there were “probative facts to support the verdict,” the district court did not err by denying defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff’s discrimination claims. The court also concluded that a reasonable jury could find evidence of a conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bonenberger v. St. Louis Metro. Police Dept." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Lisa and Frederic Fezard, employees of UCP, filed suit seeking overtime pay contending that the living arrangement in private residences requires additional work time that should be compensated as overtime. At issue is the phrase "private home" in a regulatory provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 213(a)(15). The district court granted summary judgment to UCP. The court concluded that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to UCP because the dwelling units in which the employees provided services were private homes. The court also concluded that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to UCP because Ms. Fezard failed to provide evidence from which a jury could conclude that the nonretaliatory bases for termination asserted by UCP are pretextual. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Fezard v. United Cerebral Palsy etc." on Justia Law