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

The EEOC and Adam Breaux, a terminated employee of PFI, appealed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in favor of PFI. Breaux asserted that PFI discriminated against him based on his right shoulder injury and the district court erred in granting summary judgment on this claim. The court concluded that the year-long period that PFI accommodated Breaux's injury negated causation; and the casual, somewhat ambiguous conversation that took place in August 2009, does not establish a causal connection between Breaux's termination and his disability. Even if a prima facie case was established, because PFI has advanced a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Breaux - poor performance - the burden shifted back to the EEOC and Breaux to show that PFI's proffered reason is pretext for intentional discrimination. In this case, the EEOC and Breaux failed to show pretext. Therefore, the district court correctly granted summary judgment on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112(a), discrimination claim. Further, the district court properly granted summary judgment on the ADA failure-to-accommodate claim where Breaux failed to prove that he requested an accommodation. Because the district court properly dismissed the discrimination and retaliation claims, the court affirmed its dismissal of the successor liability claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "EEOC v. Product Fabricators, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, individually and in his official capacity as a circuit judge, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq., and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq, as well as statutory violations. Plaintiff contended that defendant unlawfully discriminated against him on the basis of a disability, his back injury, by terminating him and by failing to accommodate his disability, and retaliated against him for requesting an accommodation. The court concluded that no genuine issue of material fact exists for trial regarding whether defendant discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of his disability; the record demonstrated that defendant accommodated all of plaintiff's known limitations during the period of his employment at issue; and defendant did not violate the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by retaliating against him for requesting accommodation for his disability where plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue for trial regarding a causal connection; and plaintiff failed to make a submissible case of interference with his FMLA rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Withers v. Johnson, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Prairie Ethanol on his claim of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12201 et seq. Assuming, without deciding, that plaintiff established a prima facie case of disability discrimination, Prairie Ethanol has offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory justification for terminating his employment - plaintiff's overly aggressive style of operating the plant, which resulted in the plant machinery swinging on three occasions and nearly losing the plant on one of those three occasions. Prairie Ethanol's performance-related concern constituted a legitimate, non-discriminatory justification for discharging plaintiff. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Cody v. Prairie Ethanol, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit to collect fringe benefits owed to union employee benefit funds by a plumbing company under 29 U.S.C. 1145. The court concluded that O'Laughlin did not unequivocally express an intent to terminate its participation in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) for two reasons. First, under the circumstances, the court's examination of O'Loughlin's conduct was paramount to the court's consideration of the two letters it sent to the Union. Here, O'Laughlin manifested an intent to abide and be bound by the terms of the CBA by continuing to make fringe benefit contributions on behalf of its employees throughout the 2011 calendar year. Second, the two letters O'Laughlin sent to the Union were ineffective to express an unequivocal intent to terminate participation in the CBA in any event. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's determination that O'Laughlin unequivocally terminated its participation in the CBA and remanded for further proceedings. View "Twin City Pipe Trades Service v. O'Laughlin Plumbing & Heating" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, CSG, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., alleging claims of gender discrimination and retaliation. The court concluded that, assuming without deciding, that plaintiff established a prima facie case of gender discrimination, CSG offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory justification for terminating her employment where CSG identified substantial performance-related problems; plaintiff failed to prove there was pretext for the gender discrimination; and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's discrimination claim. Likewise, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that CSG's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her employment was pretextual. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliation claim as well. View "Fiero v. CSG Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, Novo, and former superivisor at Novo, alleging that Novo terminated her in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. The court concluded that plaintiff could not establish that defendants acted with discriminatory animus against plaintiff for taking FMLA leave. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the court concluded that plaintiff could not demonstrate pretext; plaintiff did not adduce enough evidence to rebut Novo's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her termination; and, therefore, plaintiff has not produced sufficient probative evidence that her termination was the result of unlawful FMLA retaliation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. View "Ebersole v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, Annett, alleging that the company acted in bad faith when it failed to provide medical care and refused to pay him healing-period benefits. Annett counter-claimed for fraud. The court concluded that the district court correctly ruled that plaintiff was required to exhaust his claim with the commissioner; under Iowa law, Annett had a reasonable basis to believe that it could request plaintiff to undergo an examination by the company's chosen physician and plaintiff's refusal to submit to the examination made the propriety of the company's denial of healing-period benefits at least fairly debatable; therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment for Annett on plaintiff's bad-faith failure to pay benefits claim; and, under either Iowa law or federal law, Annett was judicially estopped from proceeding against plaintiff because Annett had admitted liability in plaintiff's alternate care petition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. Annett's motion to strike portions of plaintiff's supplemental appendix was denied as moot. View "Spencer v. Annett Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the State for violating section 102(a) of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2612(a), and against Judge Gaertner, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, for retaliating against her for exercising her First Amendment right to free speech. The court concluded that plaintiff was not an eligible employee covered by the FMLA because she was a member of the personal staff of the judge, who held a public elective office; although plaintiff's blog posts and other speech discussed her own case in detail, the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff's speech related to a matter of public concern; plaintiff's actions were sufficient evidence of disruption; plaintiff did not cite clearly established law putting the judge on notice that Pickering balancing in a situation such as this would fall in plaintiff's favor, nor did the court identify any such case law; and the district court correctly determined that the judge was entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's section 1983 claim where the judge did not have notice that his termination of an insubordinate employee who compromised the propriety and efficiency of his courtroom could violate her right to free speech. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hemminghaus v. State of Missouri, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her employer, the Postal Service, alleging that the Postal Service violated her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., after she was terminated for absenteeism. Plaintiff worked for the Postal Service under a series of appointments in a status known as a "casual" employee. The court concluded that plaintiff's case consisted of an unpersuasive argument of temporal proximity combined with a collection of challenges to agency practice and explanations that did not support an inference of impermissible motive. Accordingly, this was not a submissible case of discrimination and the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Malloy v. United States Postal Service" on Justia Law

The EEOC filed suit against Audrain, alleging that Audrain violated federal civil rights statutes by refusing to consider David Lunceford to a vacant operating room nurse position on the basis of his sex. The district court concluded that Lunceford did not suffer an adverse employment decision because he never completed a Request for Transfer form so Audrain never made a decision to deny him the position. In light of the evidence, the court concluded that Lunceford did not make every reasonable attempt to convey his interest in the position and the district court did not err in concluding that the EEOC did not establish a claim of employment discrimination. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "EEOC v. Audrain Health Care, Inc." on Justia Law