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

Plaintiff filed suit against NSP under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201-219, for failure to pay overtime wages. On appeal, NSP challenged the district court's denial of its motion for summary judgement and grant of partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff because there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether plaintiff was an exempt employee and not entitled to overtime pay. In this case, there are genuine issues related to whether plaintiff's primary duties were directly related to management and general business operations, and whether plaintiff exercised discretion and independent judgment in matters of significance. View "Grage v. Northern States Power Co." on Justia Law

Mechanics, members of the Union and employees of Metro, filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration under section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (UMTA), 49 U.S.C. 5333, that Metro must establish a framework through which they could form a bargaining unit separate from the Union. The Union intervened and the district court granted the Union's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that section 13(c) does not entitle mechanics to the relief they seek because Congress did not intend to provide a federal forum for disputes between unions and transit authorities; the language and structure of section 13(c) does not suggest that Congress intended to create a federal private cause of action; and the consistent theme in Section 13(c)’s legislative history was that “Congress intended that labor relations between transit workers and local governments would be controlled by state law[.]" Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Stenger v. Bi-State Dev. Agency" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, 19 workers employed by Degeller, filed a class action suit on behalf of themselves and similarly situated Deggeller employees. The court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the breach of contract claim where the workers’ allegation that Deggeller failed to pay the prevailing wage stated a valid claim for breach of their employment contracts. The court also concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the workers' claim for statutory damages under 26 U.S.C. 7434 because they alleged that Deggeller intentionally filed fraudulent tax documents on their behalf. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals of these claims and vacate its decision under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3) not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Arkansas minimum wage claim. View "Cuellar-Aguilar v. Deggeller Attractions, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, six homecare providers, filed suit challenging Minnesota's Individual Providers of Direct Support Services Representation Act, Minn. Stat. 179A.54, 179A.06. The Act allows homecare providers for Medicaid program participants to unionize. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' Supremacy Clause claim because the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 152, does not preempt Minnesota's regulation of domestic service workers; plaintiffs' state preemption argument against the SEIU failed because even if the state laws conflict irreconcilably, the law passed most recently by the legislature controls and thus the Act trumps the older statute's definition of "employees;" the district court properly dismissed the providers' tortious interference claim against the state defendants because federal courts are unable to order state officials to conform their conduct to state law; and the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' Contract Clause claims where plaintiffs did not have authority to negotiate compensation or benefits terms with program participants. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Greene v. Dayton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his disability discrimination and constructive discharge claims against SNS. The court concluded that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable person would not have found his work environment intolerable. Therefore, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to SNS on plaintiff's claim under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), Mo. Rev. Stat. 213. The court concluded that the fact that an employee is disciplined in accordance with an employment policy is not enough to prove a constructive discharge claim under the MHRA. In this case, while one of plaintiff's supervisors laughed when asked about plaintiff's future at SNS and another supervisor told plaintiff that "this" would continue if he did not resign, the evidence was insufficient to create a material factual dispute about whether plaintiff's work environment was intolerable. The court also concluded that plaintiff did not give SNS a reasonable opportunity to resolve any problems with supervisors and plaintiff admits that he never complained about his supervisors during his employment. Therefore, the district court properly granted SNS summary judgment on plaintiff's constructive discharge claim. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Cosby v. Steak N Shake" on Justia Law

The Army hired URS to destroy munitions at a facility in Arkansas. Smith, a black male, was hired by URS as a full-time temporary instructor/trainer for employees on the Arkansas project. Within months URS hired another black male and a white male (Griffin) for training positions; there were already four individual with various credentials in training positions. Smith alleges that the white man was paid more for essentially the same work and was given a favorable ranking in deciding which trainers should be terminated first, notwithstanding the fact that Griffin had a disciplinary report in his personnel files, for distributing purportedly obscene material in a class. Smith and testified that Griffin had openly conducted a side-business of selling health drinks from his office space at URS on company time without being disciplined. After being terminated during a reduction in forces, Smith sued, alleging race discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981. The Eighth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of URS, noting “evidence of dissembling” that a jury could rely upon to discount URS's claimed rationales for its actions. View "Smith v. URS Corp." on Justia Law

Loren Cook manufactures air circulating equipment, using lathes to form and mold metal discs. Lathes operate by holding heavily lubricated pieces of metal that rotate rapidly, allowing the lathe operator to apply tools to shape the metal into individual workpieces. In 2009, a Loren Cook lathe operator was killed when a 12-pound rotating metal workpiece broke free from the lathe, flew out of his machine at 50-70 mph, and struck him in the head, then traveled along the floor at least another 20 feet before crashing into metal shelving. The Department of Labor issued two citations, finding seven violations of 29 C.F.R. 1910.212(a)(1) for failure to employ barrier guards to protect workers from ejected workpieces, resulting in a total fine of $490,000. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission adopted an ALJ’s decision vacated the fine. The Eighth Circuit initially reversed, but on rehearing en banc, affirmed the Commission’s order, agreeing that section 1910.212(a)(1) focuses on point-of-contact risks and risks associated with routine operation of lathes, such as flakes and sparks, but does not contemplate the catastrophic failure of a lathe that would result in a workpiece being thrown out of the lathe. View "Perez v. Loren Cook Co." on Justia Law

In 2002 Brown began working for Diversified. She was promoted and received excellent reviews. In 2009 Brown became an account executive. Brown struggled in the position, repeatedly making serious record-keeping errors. Brown took 12 weeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601, after receiving a breast cancer diagnosis. Diversified provided Brown with additional training after she returned, and her 2011 reviews noted improvement, but still identified needed improvement. Diversified was purchased by a new owner, who told Brown’s new manager to rank employees and discharge the lowest performers. After determining that Brown was underperforming, management decided to move Brown to a different position. Diversified accommodated Brown’s high risk pregnancy and did not immediately change her job, but then lost a major account. Diversified accommodated Brown’s request to work from home for several weeks. Brown was fired five days after complaining about her reassignment .The district court granted Diversified summary judgment on all FMLA and state law claims. The Eighth Circuit reversed in part: where an employer has known its stated reason for taking adverse action against an employee for an extended period of time, but only acts after the employee engages in protected activity, the employer's earlier inaction supports an inference of pretext. View "Brown v. Diversified Distrib. Sys., LLC" on Justia Law

In a suit alleging violation of the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201, the district court certified a class consisting of current and former hourly employees of Tyson’s Madison facility, who “are or were paid under a ‘gang time’ compensation system in the Kill, Cut or Conversion Departments.” Gang time refers to time on the production line; Tyson uses a different system (K-Code) to compensate for pre- and post-shift activities, such as donning and doffing. The amount of K-Code time compensated depends on the employee’s position. Tyson had changed the K-Code entitlements. The court granted plaintiffs summary judgment on most liability issues, and awarded nearly $19 million to the class after a bench trial on damages and Tyson’s defense of good faith. The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding no evidence that Tyson had agreed to pay the disputed compensation as required for liability under the Nebraska Collection Act and that the FLSA claims should have been dismissed for failure to file a timely consent to the collective action as required by 29 U.S.C. 216(b). View "Acosta v. Tyson Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

FedEx contracts with operators to take packages from its terminals to homes and businesses. FedEx assigns each territory to an operator. Former operators claim that FedEx defrauded them as to their employment status, denying them benefits, such as overtime pay and workers’ compensation. Operators were paid based on the numbers of packages and stops serviced and were not required to drive personally; they could hire others, subject to FedEx’s qualifications. Operators received a proprietary interest in their territories, which they could sell, subject to approval. FedEx could not fire the operators at will during their contract terms, but could fire them for cause, and could choose not to renew their contracts for any reason. Operators provided their own vehicles. FedEx managers could ride along on four delivery runs per year. Contracts stated that an operator made deliveries “strictly as an independent contractor, and not as an employee,” but FedEx required that operators’ vehicles bear FedEx’s logo and be painted “FedEx White.” Operators had to provide proof of inspection and maintenance. Drivers had to wear a FedEx uniform and meet FedEx personal appearances standards. Drivers were subject to background, credit, and drug checks. They had to use FedEx package scanners. The district court granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment, finding no genuine dispute that they were FedEx employees, even though under Missouri law employment status is an issue of fact. The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding that a reasonable jury could disagree. View "Gray v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc." on Justia Law