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

After graduating from the FAA Academy, Huynh became a trainee air traffic controller. Huynh, the only Asian American in his training class, reported problems with his instructors. He was assigned a different team. The new team reported that Huynh was performing poorly. Huynh was granted 42 additional training hours above the180 target hours. After he completed those hours, Huynh moved on to the second of 12 required certifications. He was again reported as performing poorly. Huynh's team provided many opportunities to improve, beyond the 180t hours. Superiors reported that Huynh did not have command of basic air traffic terminology and geography and was defensive when trainers noted mistakes. Huynh was the only member of his class suspended for poor performance on a skill check. Huynh applied for reassignment, but no other facilities offered to hire him. A review board concluded that Huynh had been given comprehensive training, but had failed to progress. A manager nonetheless continued Huynh's training. Huynh received additional instruction and several weeks to refresh his learning. Shortly after Huynh returned to training, he reported problems with his supervisors and classmates. He declined reassignment. Problems continued; Huynh was terminated. The court granted the FAA summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims of racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. 2000e and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, finding that the stated reasons for termination were not pretextual. View "Huynh v. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

Initially hired in 1987, Schaffhauser worked as a Plant Engineering Manager from 2007-2012. He received training on UPS’s anti-harassment, anti-discrimination, and ADA policies. The company prohibits unprofessional and discourteous actions, even if those actions do not constitute unlawful harassment. In 2012, Schaffhauser was at work chatting with Sharkey, Goodwin, and Williams (all African-Americans). Goodwin said, “I wish Rodney Barefield would take a swing at me and I would knock that motherf**r out.” Schaffhauser commented, “If he ever hit me, I would hit him back so hard it’d knock the black off him.” He admits making the comment, that it could be racist, and that it was a mistake, but claims he was just joking and did not intend it to be racist. In his report to human resources, Schaffhauser claimed that his medical condition was a “contributing factor in [his] poor choice of words.” Schaffhauser was demoted from manager to supervisor. Schaffhauser sued UPS, alleging reverse race discrimination and failure to accommodate a disability (he had received a steroid shot). The district court granted summary judgment to UPS. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Schaffhauser did not request accommodation or inform UPS of the relevant details of his disability. UPS had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action View "Schaffhauser v. United Parcel Serv., Inc." on Justia Law

St. Francis hired Shirrell, who is Jewish, as a nurse in 1995. Shirrell resigned in 2000. In 2001, St. Francis re-hired Shirrell. In early 2012, Miller, who is not Jewish, commented to a co-worker that she was going to try to “Jew down” a seller to a lower price. Shirrell informed her supervisor, who talked to Miller, posted a copy of the harassment policy, and sent an email reminding nurses to be careful with their words and actions. Six weeks later, Shirrell informed her supervisor that her work environment had become hostile, alleging that co-workers gave her the cold shoulder and that Miller accused Shirrell of trying to get Miller in trouble. St. Francis later promoted Miller, who brought two patient complaints concerning Shirrell to the attention of her supervisor. By late May 2012, Shirrell had accumulated five unscheduled absences within a 12-month period. Subsequent incidents were described as reluctance, disinterest, or neglect in carrying out responsibilities. Based on Shirrell’s accumulate disciplinary points, her employment was terminated. She filed suit, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the Missouri Human Rights Act. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant; St. Francis terminated Shirrell pursuant to policy for accumulation of disciplinary points. View "Shirrell v. St. Francis Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

After the Fire District suspended Anzaldua, a paramedic and firefighter, for failing to respond to a directive issued by Chief Farwell, Anzaldua emailed a newspaper reporter expressing concerns about the District and about Farwell. The email “shocked” and “angered” his co-workers. Battalion chiefs noted it “fostered division between Anzaldua and his co-workers," and between firefighters and Farwell. The District terminated Anzaldua, who sued, alleging that the District and the individuals involved in his termination violated his First Amendment rights by retaliation and that Farwell and Anzaldua’s ex-girlfriend violated federal and state computer privacy laws by accessing his email account and obtaining his emails. The district court allowed some First Amendment claims to proceed but dismissed all other claims and denied leave to amend the computer privacy law claims. The court granted defendants summary judgment on Anzaldua’s First Amendment claims, citing qualified immunity. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on Anzaldua’s First Amendment claims and denial of leave to amend federal computer privacy law claims, but reversed denial of leave to amend state computer privacy law claims. View "Anzaldua v. Northeast Ambulance & Fire" on Justia Law

Fischer worked for Minneapolis Public Schools as a Janitor Engineer, 2008-2010, and performed satisfactorily. After being laid off for fiscal reasons, he was told that he was eligible for reinstatement, conditioned on his possession of a boilers license and his completion of a strength test created by Cost Reduction Technology that measured the “maximum force-producing capability of muscles.” Fisher did not pass the test. Fischer alleged that District employees told him that he was not reinstated because of his back, that he was “incapable of pulling, carrying, pushing, or lifting a heavy load,” and that his employment would “create[] a substantial risk of injury in the work place.” The District denied his request for a retest. Fischer sued, claiming violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act by refusing to reinstate him. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the district. The District’s belief that Fischer was capable of performing the physical labor of a medium strength worker is not equivalent to a belief that Fischer suffered a physical impairment such as a physiological disorder, cosmetic disfigurement, anatomical loss, or disease as defined by the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12102(1). View "Fischer v. Minneapolis Pub. Schs" on Justia Law

Graham sold insurance for American Family from 1988 until 2011. In 1996, they entered into an Agent Agreement. In 2010, following a customer complaint, American Family concluded that Graham had increased coverage and added endorsements without customer permission, increasing premiums; improperly applied multi-vehicle discounts to accounts with only one car; and changed vehicle-rating symbols used to assign risk and determine appropriate premiums for automobile insurance. American Famly terminated the Agreement. Weeks later, Graham formed an independent agency and sent letters to approximately 1,500 of his former American Family customers telling them he no longer represented American Family and had signed an agreement not to solicit or induce former customers for one year, but was not prohibited from serving needs not covered by American Family. Graham stated he now represented over 50 companies and could offer clients “more choices, expanded coverage, and excellent rates” that might be “better suited for your needs.” If a former customer contacted Graham, the customer was asked to sign a “non-inducement form.” American Family sued. Graham counterclaimed for wrongful termination. American Family asserted that Graham’s conduct qualified as “dishonest,” obviating the need for notice under the Agreement. The Eighth Circuit affirmed enforcement of a stipulated damages clause in the Agreement, in favor of American Family. View "Am. Family Mut, Ins. Co. v. Graham" on Justia Law

First National sought a successor for Senior Vice President of Operations Downing. Cox, a woman, began at First National in 2008 as Vice President of Loan Operations, reporting to Downing. She had 21 years of experience, plus a graduate degree. Her 2009 and 2011 performance appraisals rated her “Meets Expectations.” Doyle, a man, began at First National in 2000 and became Vice President of Payment Operations, reporting to Downing. He had more than 10 years’ previous experience. He was rated “Meets Expectations” in 2011 and “Exceeds Expectations” in 2009. Anticipating retirement, Downing created a matrix, rating potential candidates. Doyle rated higher in: “Leadership,” “Peer Respect,” and “Managerial Acceptance.” President O’Neill made the decision. O’Neill did not interview the candidates, did not review their resumes or appraisals, but studied Downing’s matrix. One of 15 executive officers was female, one member of the 12-member Board of Directors, and one of 18 employees reporting directly to O’Neill. O’Neill promoted Doyle. Cox remained in the same position; O’Neill gave her a raise and increased responsibility. Cox sued for gender discrimination. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer. Taken as a whole, Cox did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact that O’Neill’s reasons for promoting Doyle are “unworthy of credence.” Only the lack of female executives supported pretext. View "Cox v. First Nat'l Bank" on Justia Law

Sellers, a Deere employee for more than 30 years, sued Deere and his supervisor, alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621, and the Iowa Civil Rights Act; disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act), 42 U.S.C. 12101; retaliation under the ADEA, ICRA, and ADA; and harassment because of his age and disability. The district court granted defendants summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that Sellers did not suffer an adverse employment action when his title and duties changed during a company-wide personnel reorganization. Incidents identified by Sellers may have been “rude or unpleasant,” but they were not “severe enough to affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of his employment.” View "Sellers v. Deere & Co." on Justia Law

Burciaga began working at Ravago in 2007. Howe, a customer service manager, was her supervisor. Burciaga utilized Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601, leave in 2008 and 2010-2011, for the births of her children. Burciaga received raises after each leave. After Burciaga returned to work in 2011, she had several performance-related issues. Howe warned that if the errors continued, she could be terminated. Burciaga requested FMLA paperwork in 2012, for intermittent leave to care for her son. Ravago’s human resources department approved her leave. According to Burciaga, Howe provided her time off for appointments when she requested it and was flexible with scheduling so she could attend appointments. Burciaga thereafter took FMLA leave for half a day on August 8, September 5, and September 6. After Burciaga returned from leave on September 6, she committed several shipping errors over the following three weeks. On the 28th, Burciaga’s employment was terminated. Howe indicated the termination was due to Burciaga’s shipping errors. Howe also could not provide Burciaga with the specific monetary amount her errors cost Ravago. Neither Howe nor Kramer referenced Burciaga’s absences. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Ravago on her FMLA claim. View "Burciaga v. Ravago Americas, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2007-2012, Stewart was supervisor of a branch office for Rise, a welfare-services non-profit entity that obtained funding from a Minnesota welfare program, "Pathways." Stewart supervised counselors who directly assisted clients. Stewart's performance was measured in part by the relative workforce participation rate for her office's clients compared to clients of other Pathways organizations. During Stewart's tenure, other offices closed, a state government shut-down occurred, and workloads from different offices were consolidated, without a commensurate increase in staffing. When Stewart began working at Rise, the workforce participation rate was at a generally acceptable level. By the time she was terminated, her office’s performance had deteriorated. Stewart's predecessor and successor were, like Stewart, American-born African-American women. Stewart claimed that male, Somali-born subordinates created a hostile work environment through sexist, racist, and nationalist comments and through physical violence and intimidation, and that her supervisors ignored her complaints, denied her the authority to terminate the offending employees, allowed the hostile environment to persist, and eventually terminated her employment as an act of discrimination and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment for Rise. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remand as to the hostile work environment claim but otherwise affirmed. View "Stewart v. Rise, Inc." on Justia Law