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

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

Heartland provides laboratory services to long-term healthcare facilities. Watson, an African-American woman, was a route phlebotomist, traveling to several facilities, drawing blood from patients, and returning to the lab to process the samples. As a new employee, Watson was subject to a 90-day probationary period. Watson's route included Plaza Manor, where she was assigned to draw blood from Ramsey. While Watson was attempting to draw Ramsey's blood, he touched Watson’s inside thigh and moved his hand upward. Watson told Ramsey to stop and brushed his hand away. When Ramsey touched her "crotch area," Watson knelt down to draw Ramsey's blood. Ramsey put his hand on her side. After she stopped attempting to draw blood, Ramsey "grabbed the back of [Watson's] neck to try to kiss [her]." Watson left and reported the incident to Heartland, which ensured that she never provided services for Ramsey again, but denied her request for a route change. Watson continued to visit Plaza Manor. Ramsey verbally assaulted Watson, making racial and sexually derogatory remarks. After the seventh incident, Watson missed three days of work. Under Heartland's policy, an employee is considered to have voluntarily abandoned her job after two consecutive days of absence without properly notifying Heartland. Heartland left multiple voicemail messages. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment rejecting her claims of hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act. View "Watson v. Heartland Health Labs, Inc." on Justia Law

Greater Omaha employs several hundred workers in its beef processing plant. In 2008, the entire non-union fabrication workforce stopped working until the owner listened to their concerns. None were fired. In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security notified Greater Omaha that the employment eligibility of 179 employees could not be verified. Some employees were arrested and others quit. Remaining employees complained that the speed of the meat lines forced them to assume heavier workloads because there were so many new workers; 10-12 employees, including Zamora, left their workstations to protest working conditions. They returned to work when Plant Manager Correa agreed to meet. Correa told them that the compensation package was competitive, agreed to speak with management about other concerns, and reminded employees of the safety rule that they not leave the production lines without permission. Employees remained disgruntled. Degante planned a work stoppage and asked Salgado to tell other employees; when she told others, they were already aware of the plan. Zamora and Degante were fired. The National Labor Relations Board charged Greater Omaha with wrongfully terminating employees for engaging in protected concerted activity, interrogating employees regarding protected concerted activities, and creating the impression it was conducting surveillance of protected concerted activities. An ALJ concluded that the employees were wrongfully terminated (29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1)), but found that Greater Omaha had not made coercive statements or created the impression that protected activities were under surveillance. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the wrongful termination rulings, declined to uphold the interrogation and surveillance rulings, and enforced the Board’s Order, as modified. View "Greater Omaha Packing Co., Inc v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd." on Justia Law

Wagner worked for Gallup for 12 years before his 2011 termination at age 50. Wagner co-authored two books for Gallup. The first became a New York Times bestseller. Gallup still sells both books. Wagner received positive verbal feedback from individuals in management. Gallup presented him with many awards during his employment. In 2011, Bogart became Wagner's supervisor. Bogart was 35, but had worked for Gallup longer than Wagner. Wagner stated that he and Bogart only interacted twice while Bogart was his supervisor. Bogart called Wagner and discussed the ongoing transitional situation of Wagner’s position and Bogart's difficulty finding a place for Wagner on a team given the perception that Wagner was too "self-referential." During a second call, Bogart terminated Wagner, informing Wagner that his position had been eliminated. Wagner sued, alleging age discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act and invasion of privacy based on appropriation of his name or likeness. Wagner submitted declarations from two former Gallup employees who had worked with Wagner. Both stated that Gallup had initiated a "youthful movement" and targeted older employees for termination. The district court granted judgment in favor of Gallup. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Wagner was unable to establish a question of fact as to Gallup's motives for his termination and did not establish intentionality with respect to his privacy clam. View "Wagner v. Gallup, Inc." on Justia Law

Before 2010, no disciplinary issues were recorded in the employment history of former BNSF Railway claims representative Ludlow. In 2009, Ludlow discovered his forged signature on documents submitted to the Department of Veterans Affairs certifying that coworker Fernandes was eligible to receive VA training benefits. Ludlow reported the forgery to his supervisor, Wunker, opining that Fernandes may have been responsible. Wunker did not investigate or report to his superiors, contrary to what Ludlow believed BNSF protocol required. In 2010, Ludlow reported the forgery to the BNSF police, notifying Wunker the following day. Wunker expressed concern that the disclosure could cost him his job and began sending complaints regarding Ludlow’s workplace behavior to Human Resources. After his termination, Ludlow sued for wrongful termination in violation of Nebraska public policy and whistleblower retaliation under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act (NFEPA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-1114(3). A jury found BNSF liable on the NFEPA claim and awarded damages. The court awarded $206,514.13 in attorney’s fees and $22,202.16 in nontaxable costs. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to jury instructions that Ludlow need only prove that his protected activity was a “motivating factor” in the termination and to the amount of attorney’s fees and costs. View "Ludlow v. BNSF Ry. Co." on Justia Law

The Director and the Board sought a preliminary injunction under section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA), as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. 160(j), alleging that Southern Bakeries engaged in acts that violate the NLRA. The district court granted the injunction pending the Board’s final disposition of the unfair labor practices allegations. The injunction enjoins and restrains Southern Bakeries and all persons acting in concert with it from failing to recognize the Union and directs Southern Bakeries to allow the Union access to the facility in a manner consistent with past practice and to post copies of the district court’s order in English and Spanish. The court concluded that the district court erred in not first and fully considering whether this case presents a threat of irreparable harm “to the collective bargaining process or to other protected employee activities.” Because the Board did not clear the “relatively high hurdle” of demonstrating irreparable injury, the court need not address the other preliminary injunction factors. The court held that the Board’s normal adjudicatory process will not frustrate the remedial purpose of the Act in this case and therefore concluded that the district court abused its discretion in granting injunctive relief. The court vacated the injunction. View "McKinney v. Southern Bakeries, LLC" on Justia Law

Rebouche began working for Deere as a technician in 1977. She claims she was passed over for promotions and asked to train male supervisors. In 1998 she and three others filed a complaint with human resources. As a result a supervisor was sent to sensitivity training. In 2002-2004 Deere engaged a consulting firm and redefined job titles. Rebouche alleges that none of the women in her department received pay grade increases, while men were elevated. Rebouche file a complaint with the EEOC. She was subsequently promoted. The district court granted summary judgment, rejecting her claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a) and Iowa law. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that allegations concerning events in 1998-2001 were time barred; that Rebouche failed to establish that similarly-situated males were treated differently during the remapping of jobs; and that there was no evidence of retaliation for the EEOC filing. View "Rebouche v. Deere & Co." on Justia Law

On December 28, Hudson did not attend work as a Tyson supervisor due to illness. Hudson’s girlfriend (a Tyson employee) told Hudson’s supervisor, Beganovic, that Hudson would be late or absent that day. Hudson claims he texted Beganovic before his shift that he was having health issues and would be out a few days. Tyson’s attendance policy requires managers “to personally call their direct supervisor to report an unplanned absence.” Hudson claims that he often texted with Beganovic, and at least once before (acceptably) notified Beganovic of an absence by text. Hudson missed three work days, saw a doctor, and was diagnosed with back pain and depression. On January 3, Hudson went to Tyson with a doctor’s note and requested leave from December 28 until January 7. He intended to apply for Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA ) leave. He signed an application, on which the non-FMLA box was checked. He claims someone else checked it after he signed. On January 4, Tyson granted Hudson non-FMLA leave. Hudson returned to Tyson on January 9 and was terminated for failure to comply with notification policy. Hudson sued under the FMLA. The Eighth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of Tyson, noting disputes as to whether Tyson enforced its call-in policy. View "Hudson v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc." on Justia Law

n 2007, Minneapolis Police Department Lieutenant Keefe was made commander of the Violent Offenders Task Force, involving the FBI, ATF, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The task force conducted a wiretap investigation of a gang. Keefe learned that gang members had threatened to kill police officers. Keefe told a local police chief that the U.S. Attorney’s Office would brief the chief’s department about an ongoing investigation. ATF officials believed that this disclosure was inappropriate because the investigation involved a wiretap and notified Keefe that he was “prohibited from entering ATF office space.” In an unrelated investigation, a suspected gang leader identified six MPD officers as corrupt, triggering a corruption investigation. Keefe doubted the claims and confronted the informant. The FBI told his chief that Keefe was harming the investigation. Keefe was removed from the investigation and, after others voice concerns, was removed from the task force only months after his appointment. Keefe lodged a misconduct complaint (later designated unfounded) against an MPD Sergeant who was involved in his reassignment and made an anonymous telephone call to the chief’s wife. Keefe was disciplined for false allegations and demoted. The Eighth Circuit affirmed rejection of Keefe’s 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims. View "Keefe v. City of Minneapolis" on Justia Law

Former employees filed a qui tam False Claims suit against Heritage College, a for-profit school, alleging it fraudulently induced the Department of Education (DOE) to provide funds by falsely promising to keep accurate student records as required by 20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(3). They claimed that Heritage altered grade and attendance records from 2006 to 2012 to ensure students made satisfactory progress and to avoid refunds, thereby maximizing Title IV funds. Around 97% of Heritage students receive Title IV aid, accounting for about 90% of gross tuition. From 2009 to 2012, the DOE disbursed $32,817,727 to Heritage. Each relator also alleged retaliation under the FCA and wrongful discharge under state law. For purposes of summary judgment, Heritage did not dispute that it altered records. The district court granted summary judgment to Heritage, finding that any false statements were not material to government funding decisions. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the FCA claim, but affirmed the employment claims. Heritage could not have executed the participation agreement without stating it would maintain adequate records and without the agreement Heritage could not have received any Title IV funds. Heritage's actions with respect to the plaintiffs were not retaliatory. View "Miller v. Weston Educ., Inc." on Justia Law