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

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his breach of contract and retaliation claim against Boston Scientific. Plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and then Boston Scientific terminated his employment shortly after his filing. The court concluded that, because the guaranteed payments at issue, if due at all, were property of the bankruptcy estate, plaintiff lacked standing to assert his breach of contract claim. Plaintiff's argument that had Boston Scientific not terminated him, the payments he received under the Employment Agreement would have been future earnings also failed. Because plaintiff never requested leave to amend his complaint to include a retaliation claim, the district court could not be faulted for failing to allow him to do so. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Longaker v. Boston Scientific Corp., et al" on Justia Law

Officers appealed the district court's orders striking the officers' affidavits submitted in resisting summary judgment, and granting summary judgment to the city on the officers' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 203 et seq., claims against the city. The officers alleged that the response team instituted a policy of flextime in January 2006 and ending November 2009 that gave flextime or time off rather than receiving overtime compensation at time-and-a-half in violation of the FLSA. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by striking affidavits submitted by the officers which contained precise estimations of hours owed because the officers "unjustifiably failed to comply" with their discovery obligations. Further, the officers have failed to provide any evidence of actual damages. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Carmody, et al v. K. C. Board of Police Comm., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff argued on appeal that Home Service terminated him contrary to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and that Home Service breached his contract. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Home Service, because plaintiff was not qualified to perform an essential function of his job - being DOT qualified to drive a delivery truck - because of his eye injury. The court also held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's mileage reimbursement claim and on his bonus claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Knutson v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

NSP sought to vacate an arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his authority under a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the Union to grant an award after first determining that NSP had just cause for making its termination decision. The court held that the language of the arbitrator's decision was sufficient to show that the arbitrator found the termination was supported by just cause. Having answered the first submitted question in the affirmative, the arbitrator had no authority to address the second question of remedy or to fashion a remedy different than the termination. Therefore, the district court properly vacated the arbitrator's award for reaching beyond his authority under the CBA. View "Northern States Power Co. v. IBEW, Local 160" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the City and her supervisors, claiming that the City's reasons for terminating her were pretextual. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiff's seven claims. The court affirmed the judgment because there was no evidence or reasonable inference that the City's reasons for terminating plaintiff's employment for failure in performance of her duties were pretextual. View "Brown v. City of Jacksonville, et al" on Justia Law

DM&E and its president and CEO, defendant, entered into an Employment Agreement to encourage his retention following an anticipated change of control. When DM&E terminated defendant without cause and triggered the Employment Agreement's severance provision, defendant filed a demand for arbitration under the Employment Agreement. DM&E then filed this action in federal court to enjoin the arbitration. The court agreed with the district court that the benefits sought in defendant's arbitration demand were not claims for benefits due under an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., plan. The court held that it lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction to consider arbitrability, or any other issue arising under the Employment Agreement. View "Dakota, MN & Eastern R.R. v. Schieffer" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued her former employer alleging violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. The district court found in favor of plaintiff and awarded back pay, front pay, and liquidated damages. The court rejected defendant's challenges to the district court's finding of liability. Even if defendants did not waive the affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages, the court agreed with the district court's alternative holding that plaintiff's efforts to secure other employment were reasonable. The court vacated the award of front pay as overly speculative but affirmed the district court's judgment in all other respects. View "Dollar v. Smithway Motor Xpress, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint, filed in forma pauperis (IFP), for untimely service of process and failure to state a claim. Plaintiff claimed that First Student fired him from his position as a bus driver based on his race, age, disability, seniority rights, and eligiblity for a pay raise. The court vacated the district court's order, remanding for further proceedings, because the court concluded that the complaint stated a claim and because the court could not determine from the record whether the delay in service of process was plaintiff's fault or was attributable to delays by district court staff and the USMS. View "Wright v. First Student, Inc." on Justia Law

Debtor appealed from the judgment of the bankruptcy court. At issue was whether the bonuses debtor received from her employer were considered property of debtor's estate. Because the bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) held that the bonus payments were not property of debtor's bankruptcy estate because she had no cognizable interest in the payments on the date the petition was filed, the court must reverse the bankruptcy court's revocation of debtor's discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 727(d)(2); avoidance of the transfer under 11 U.S.C. 549 of bonus funds she received postpetition from her employer and entering judgment for recovery of those funds by the Chapter 7 trustee, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 550; and granting the trustee's motion for costs filed by the trustee pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7054(b). View "Seaver v. Klein-Swanson" on Justia Law

Gear Automotive appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of its insurer. Gear Automotive's sole owner suffered an injury that resulted in substantial medical and disability loss. Gear Automotive subsequently sought coverage from its insurer for the owner's injuries. The court concluded that the owner was an employee for purposes of employing the Employee exclusion and that the owner's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment with Gear Automotive. Because the undisputed facts established both elements of the Employee exclusion, Gear Automotive was not entitled to coverage. Ultimately, the owner, as an employee, attempted to recover under a policy of insurance that was not intended to cover Gear Automotive's liability to its employees. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. View "Gear Automotive v. Wilshire Ins. Co." on Justia Law