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

Plaintiff filed suit against Brentwood after he was terminated, alleging race discrimination. A jury awarded plaintiff $1 in nominal damages. Plaintiff then sought equitable relief in the form of reinstatement and front pay. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that reinstatement was neither possible nor practical where the jury made no findings as to whether plaintiff had in fact violated the safety rules or whether his plant manager's trust concerns were genuine, and that plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence that he was entitled to front pay. View "Olivares v. Brentwood Indus." on Justia Law

North Memorial and MNA, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), referred a grievance to arbitration. The district court subsequently granted in part MNA's motion to vacate the arbitral award. The arbitrator addressed whether North Memorial violated the CBA when it refused to regularly schedule the Grievant with no weekend work. The district court imposed a prospective remedy on the parties. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded the arbitrator was without authority to issue a prospective remedy because his decision exceeded the scope of the submission presented to him by the parties. Reading the plain language of the issue as set out in the decision, the court did not believe that the arbitrator was even arguably acting within the scope of his authority. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Minnesota Nurses Association.v. North Memorial Health Care" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, BATO, alleging that BATO violated his rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601. The district court ruled in favor of BATO on plaintiff's FMLA discrimination, retaliation, and harassment claims, but ruled in favor of plaintiff on his FMLA interference claim. On appeal, BATO challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiff. Plaintiff cross-appealed regarding attorneys' fees and expenses. Based on BATO's overtime procedure, case law, and the statutory language, legislative history, and implementing regulations of the FMLA, the court concluded that plaintiff's overtime hours were mandatory. Therefore, hours missed for FMLA-qualifying reasons were correctly deducted from plaintiff's FMLA leave entitlement. By scheduling mandatory overtime hours that were not included in plaintiff's FMLA-leave allotment and yet were deducted from his FMLA entitlement when he missed an overtime shift, BATO denied plaintiff FMLA benefits to which he was entitled. In regard to plaintiff's cross-appeal, the court rejected plaintiff's claims that the district court erred when it reduced plaintiff's recoverable fees for lack of success on some of his claims; that the district court erred when it reduced his recoverable expenses by 20%; and that the district court erred when it excluded costs for computerized legal research. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Hernandez v. Bridgestone Americas Tire" on Justia Law

Silgan and the Union challenge an arbitration award. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Silgan and the Union appealed. The court concluded that the question of validity and formation is not within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Because the arbitrator lacked authority to decide this issue, the district court did not err in vacating the award. Furthermore, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Silgan and rescinding Article 36 where the mistake has resulted solely from the negligence or inattention of the party seeking relief, and the other party is without fault. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Silgan Containers Corp. v. Sheet Metal Workers Int'l" on Justia Law

Appellants challenged the district court's judgment under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 203(s)(1)(B), 213(a)(1), in favor of the Secretary for unpaid wages, re-judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as a prospective injunction. Because the covered enterprises listed in section 203(s)(1)(B) include both those which provide custodial care and those which provide educational services, and because the district court found that Endless Possibilities provides educational services to children of preschool age, the district court did not err in finding that Endless Possibilities fits within the meaning of “preschool” as used in section 203(s)(1)(B). The district court did not err in calculating damages where the district court's determination of hours worked, based on reasonable inferences and detailed evidence from the Secretary, does not equate to clear error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Perez v. Contingent Care, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, employed as a juvenile detention officer, filed suit against the County, alleging discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 12 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. Plaintiff also alleged that the County retaliated against her in violation of the ADA, Section 504, Arkansas law , and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. The County terminated plaintiff's employment because she could not meet the job requirement of lifting 40 pounds. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's claims of discrimination under the ADA and Section 504 because plaintiff was not a qualified individual where she could not perform the essential functions of her position with or without reasonable accommodation. Even if the court were to find that extending plaintiff's FMLA leave was a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, plaintiff failed to carry her burden of showing that she could perform the essential functions of her job with that accommodation. Likewise, the court agreed with the district court that the County was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's discrimination claim. The court further held that plaintiff failed to present a submissible case of retaliation under the ADA where plaintiff's request for additional time to obtain a new FMLA certification was not a reasonable accommodation, and therefore it was not protected activity. And because plaintiff still was unable to perform an essential function of her job at the end of her FMLA leave period, the County did not violate FMLA by terminating her after her FMLA expired. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Scruggs v. Pulaski County" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Wal-Mart, alleging disability discrimination, failure to continue to accommodate, retaliation, and harassment. After being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, plaintiff was transferred to a new position at Wal-Mart. The district court granted summary judgment to Wal-Mart on all claims. Plaintiff has conceded that the new overnight cashier position is less physically strenuous than stocking, and her acceptance of that position was accompanied by a $.20/hour raise. The court concluded that, because plaintiff failed to show she suffered an underlying adverse employment action, she has not made out a prima facie case of discrimination, and she cannot prove her claim that Wal-Mart failed to accommodate her disability; with temporal proximity alone to support her argument for pretext, plaintiff has failed to create a genuine issue for trial on her retaliation claim; in regard to her workplace harassment claim, plaintiff failed to identify any discriminatory statements made to her or any evidence sufficiently severe to affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of her employment; and plaintiff failed to successfully establish that she faced a hostile work environment where plaintiff offers no examples or evidence of an increased workload beyond stating that she had four pallets to stock one night. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kelleher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

MikLin, owner and operator of a Jimmy John's franchise, petitioned for review of the Board's order holding that the company engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and (3). The court concluded that that the Board did not err in determining that MikLIn violated the Act by terminating or disciplining employees for engaging in protected concerted activity, and by soliciting the removal of protected material from public places, removing union literature from an unrestricted employee bulletin board, and encouraging employees on Facebook to harass union supporters. In regard to the Sandwich Poster campaign, the court concluded that the Board's decisions were supported by substantial evidence where the communications at issue were not made with either actual knowledge of its falsehood or with reckless disregard for its veracity, and the statements were not so disloyal or recklessly disparaging as to lose protection under the Act. In regard to the Facebook postings, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the postings were sufficiently linked to the employee’s protected activity. In regard to removal of the in-store posters, the record shows that MikLin had no policy as to what could be posted on the in-store bulletin boards, and management approval was not required. Therefore, MikLin's selective removal of the flyer and the charge was an unfair labor practice. Accordingly, the court granted the Board's application for enforcement. View "MikLin Enter., Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

MikLin, owner and operator of a Jimmy John's franchise, petitioned for review of the Board's order holding that the company engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and (3). The court concluded that that the Board did not err in determining that MikLIn violated the Act by terminating or disciplining employees for engaging in protected concerted activity, and by soliciting the removal of protected material from public places, removing union literature from an unrestricted employee bulletin board, and encouraging employees on Facebook to harass union supporters. In regard to the Sandwich Poster campaign, the court concluded that the Board's decisions were supported by substantial evidence where the communications at issue were not made with either actual knowledge of its falsehood or with reckless disregard for its veracity, and the statements were not so disloyal or recklessly disparaging as to lose protection under the Act. In regard to the Facebook postings, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the postings were sufficiently linked to the employee’s protected activity. In regard to removal of the in-store posters, the record shows that MikLin had no policy as to what could be posted on the in-store bulletin boards, and management approval was not required. Therefore, MikLin's selective removal of the flyer and the charge was an unfair labor practice. Accordingly, the court granted the Board's application for enforcement. View "MikLin Enter., Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Securitas petitioned for review of the Board's order allowing certain class of Securitas's workers to seek union representation when the Board determined that Securitas failed to show the workers were supervisors under Section 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 152(11). The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Securitas failed to carry its burden of proving that the employees at issue, lieutenants, were supervisors under section 152(11). Furthermore, the disclosure of "safeguards information" was not the exclusive means by which Securitas could have satisfied its burden of proof. The court agreed with the Board that Securitas failed to present any specific exemplar evidence of a lieutenant exercising independent judgment as a response team leader. Therefore, it was unnecessary to address whether the Board erred by stating Securitas could have submitted safeguards information under a protective order. Accordingly, the court denied Securitas's petition for review and granted the Board's cross-petition for enforcement. View "Securitas Critical v. NLRB" on Justia Law