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

Bonnie, a Trinity Health employee, enrolled her family in a Blue Cross group health plan. Trinity served as plan administrator. Bonnie took FMLA leave and then short-term disability leave, which expired June 8, 2011. Bonnie requested long-term disability benefits from Unum, which provisionally paid medical care claims under a “Reservation of Rights.” In October 2011 Unum denied Bonnie’s request but did not seek repayment. June 8, 2011 was the last day Bonnie qualified for benefits and was considered an employee. Her termination was not processed, so the family received benefits until Trinity deemed them retroactively terminated. The Coles were first alerted to their loss of insurance on June 1, 2012 by husband’s physician. They obtained insurance through husband’s employer, retroactively effective June 1, 2012. Blue Cross did not seek a refund of claims paid between January 1, and April 30, 2012. The Coles claimed violation of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act by failing to notify them of their right to continuing health care coverage. The district court declined to award statutory damages, reasoning that unreimbursed medical bills from May 2012 were less than the COBRA premiums they would have had to pay to maintain insurance. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "Cole v. Trinity Health Corp." on Justia Law

Musolf was a J.C. Penney loss prevention specialist. Store manager Child had concerns Musolf did not display respect for her team. Child conducted sessions with Musolf to improve teamwork. In 2010, Musolf alleged sexual harassment by her co-worker, Pekarna. Child met with Pekarna. Pekarna never touched Musolf again. Musolf acknowledges that Child repeatedly stated that the situation was resolved. In March 2010, Musolf received a certificate commending her outstanding performance. In May, she earned a merit raise. By August, Child had received complaints about Musolf from several employees, including Pekarna. Child met with Musolf three times. Musolf admits she refused to fully answer questions. Child believed Musolf had downloaded documents in violation of her confidentiality agreement and had involved another employee in an attempt to sneak into Child's office. Child recommended terminating Musolf. Musolf communicated to the district manager that she believed Pekarna had not been properly disciplined. J.C. Penney terminated Musolf for failure to cooperate in the investigation, taking confidential information, and attempting to involve another in a plan to sneak into the manager's office and take documents. The district court rejected her claims of sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "Musolf v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc." on Justia Law

In 2006, Noel accepted a new position at SBC that involved frequent travel, which aggravated his diabetes. Two years later, Noel was hospitalized after collapsing at an airport, and the next year, SBC gave him a temporary assignment that did not involve travel. After Noel performed poorly in both his new position and the temporary assignment, SBC put him on a performance-improvement plan. Two weeks later, Noel was hospitalized again, after suffering a breakdown. He never returned to SBC. After six months of disability leave, Noel resigned. The district court rejected his claims that SBC violated the Missouri Human Rights Act by constructively discharging him because of his diabetes, a disability. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. SBC expected Noel only to continue his job as it had been; his work was made intolerable not by SBC but by his own worsening health. View "Noel v. AT&T Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., against his employer after he retired. The court concluded that plaintiff's age-based hostile work environment claim failed because the supervisor's age-related comments were not so severe as to affect a term, condition, or privilege of his employment; without more than plaintiff's speculation, a reasonable juror could not find the supervisor's actions - although contemptible - amounted to harassment based on sex; plaintiff has not shown sufficient facts to infer a hostile work environment and he cannot prove constructive discharge; and plaintiff has not suffered an adverse employment action and cannot establish a claim for either disparate treatment or retaliation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer. View "Rickard v. Swedish Match North America" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a custodian for the school district, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law against the district after plaintiff's wife spoke at a public school board meeting. Plaintiff's wife was speaking as a member of the public, suggesting that the school board should consider sharing a superintendent and eliminating a principal. The court affirmed the district court's finding that the evidence did not establish any genuine dispute of material fact or sufficient evidence to show that plaintiff's association with his wife was a substantial or motivating factor in his alleged constructive discharge; the district's proffered reasons for plaintiff's reassignment was pretext; or the requisite personal motive necessary for a tortious interference with a contract. View "Skalsky v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 743" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Caucasian male, filed suit after being terminated from the AHTD, alleging race and gender discrimination and violations of various statutory and constitutional rights. Because plaintiff has not provided analysis or development of his briefs, he has waived some of his claims. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend because amendment would be futile; plaintiff failed to present direct evidence of discrimination where, at most, plaintiff's evidence showed discord with his female subordinates, not that any discriminatory animus motivated his termination by the decisionmakers; and, under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, plaintiff's claims of race and gender discrimination fail where, even if plaintiff made a prima facie showing, AHTD offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory justification for his termination - his violation of the sexual harassment policy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Moody v. Vozel" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, three ex-fire chiefs, appealed the adverse grant of summary judgment on their procedural due process claims challenging their terminations. The court concluded that plaintiffs, at-will employees pursuant to Missouri law, were terminable at the will of their employer and they had not property interest in their continued employment under the Fourth Amendment; there was no stigma sufficient to deprive plaintiffs of a liberty interest; and plaintiffs' individual capacity claims allege no constitutional deprivation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Crews v. Monarch Fire Protection Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, Stratasys, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 207(a). Section 207(a) requires certain employees be paid overtime wages for working more than forty hours a week. Plaintiff, employed as a Field Service Engineer, sought damages based on his approximation that he worked 60 hours per week every week of his employment. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Stratasys where plaintiff failed to put forth any evidence to show that he worked more than forty hours a week. View "Holaway v. Stratasys, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against BNSF, alleging that BNSF violated the anti-retaliation mandate in the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. 20109(a), when BNSF terminated him. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claim. The court concluded that plaintiff's FRSA claim failed because he failed to present a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination where plaintiff's protected activity was completely unrelated to the fouling-the-tracks incident that led to his discharge. BNSF submitted clear and convincing evidence that it would have discharged plaintiff whether or not he had made unrelated reports that were activity protected by the FRSA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Kuduk v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Associated Underwriters after she was terminated, alleging claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. The district court dismissed both claims. The court concluded that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that there was a direct correlation between employee age and the termination decision - that it was the but-for cause of plaintiff's termination. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the ADEA claim. The court concluded, however, that the district court properly dismissed the ADA claim where there is no evidence that Associated Underwriters terminated her employment on the basis of disability. Therefore, the court affirmed as to this claim.View "Tramp v. Associated Underwriters, Inc." on Justia Law