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

Appellant, as counsel for a group of 64 retired city firefighters and their families, appealed the district court's approval of a class-action settlement agreement between the city and a certified class of active and retired firefighters, police officers, civilian employees, and their unions. The court held that, given the nature of the case and the potential conflict at issue, the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class or by ensuring fair and adequate representation for the entire class by means other than appointing separate counsel for each subclass. The district court's conclusion that the settlement agreement was a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement for all of the class members was well within its discretion. Finally, the court rejected appellant's argument that the district court abused its discretion under Rule 23(d) by failing to hold a special hearing on the ability of class counsel to represent the subclass. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Comcast claiming that the company interfered with his ability to request an excused absence under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601-54, and that his termination from employment was based on the interference, as well as retaliation of his prior FMLA absences. Plaintiff lost his employment with Comcast when he failed to show up for work on three consecutive shifts and failed to notify his department of his absences or to request leave under the FMLA. Plaintiff's unilateral determination that he was fired did not excuse him from his responsibility to return Comcast's phonecalls or otherwise confirm his employment status before he stopped showing up to work or calling in to request additional FMLA leave. Plaintiff had many opportunities to correct his misperception that he had been terminated before missing three consecutive work shifts. Therefore, the court held that the record did not support plaintiff's claim of interference against Comcast and the court affirmed the judgment.

Northwest and the Pilots Association filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that their post-bankruptcy retirement benefit plan (MP3) complied with the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001-1461. Appellants (older Pilots) counterclaimed arguing that the MP3 retirement benefit plan violated ERISA, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621-634, and several state laws prohibiting age discrimination. Under the MP3, the contributions of all of the pilots were based on their protected final average earnings, which could not be calculated without the use of age. However, that did not mean that the older Pilots' contributions have been reduced because of their age. There were several factors in the MP3 that could reduce an older pilots' projected final average earnings. While promotions and pay increases were correlated with age, they were analytically distinct and therefore not reductions in contributions because of age. Service ration and the frozen Pension Plan offset also both contributed to potential differences in contribution. Finally, the court rejected older Pilots' argument that the district court improperly disregarded the declaration of their expert witness. Therefore, the court held that the MP3 did not reduce the older Pilots' benefits because of age and therefore affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Plaintiff sued his employer, alleging that his termination was the result of interference with and retaliation for his exercise of his rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., and racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer and plaintiff appealed. The court affirmed the judgment because plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the employer's actions were a pretext for discrimination. Plaintiff's testimony that the racially hostile environment had abated since his first lawsuit was settled in his numerous uses of FMLA leave without negative consequences supported the employer's non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory justification for plaintiff's termination.

Plaintiff appealed the district court's order affirming the Commissioner's denial of his application for supplemental security income benefits. Specifically, he objected to the ALJ's finding, without considering the testimony of a vocational expert, that plaintiff was able to engage in gainful activity. The court concluded that the ALJ erred by relying solely on the guidelines to determine plaintiff was "not disabled." Because the ALJ determined that plaintiff suffered from severe mental impairments, the ALJ should have consulted a vocational expert in determining whether plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform other jobs that existed in significant number in the national economy. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff sued her former employer for national-origin discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. 363A. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, dismissing all claims with prejudice. The court held that plaintiff did not present direct evidence of national-origin discrimination in violation of Title VII or MHRA and that her claim was properly analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas framework. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Plaintiff sued her employer and its workers' compensation insurer for intentional obstruction of workers' compensation in violation of Minnesota statute 176.82. The employer and insurer moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The court held that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the employer intentionally obstructed her receipt of workers' compensation benefits through her manager's fabrications and its 17-month delay in payment. The court also held that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the insurer intentionally obstructed her receipt of workers' compensation benefits by concealing the manager's first statement about the purpose of the meeting at issue, filing a factually-inaccurate claim denial, and continuing to deny the claim through trial. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff, a licensed Iowa educator, filed suit in Iowa state court against his employer, school officials, and private citizens following his termination. Plaintiff alleged various state-law claims as well as violations of his procedural and substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the denial of his motion to remand and the dismissal of his section 1983 claims. The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to remand where, based upon the facts of the case, the unanimity requirement was satisfied. The court also held that the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's procedural due process claims as unexhausted where he failed to appeal his termination to an adjudicator under Iowa Code 279.17 and in dismissing plaintiff's substantive due process claim where he failed to plausibly plead a substantive due process claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiff claimed that her termination by EMC because of excessive work absences unlawfully interfered with her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2615(a)(1) and (a)(2). On appeal, plaintiff argued that the district court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing her claims because a reasonable jury could conclude that her protected leave was a "negative factor" in her termination. The court held that the undisputed facts showed that EMC would have made the same adverse decisions whether or not plaintiff was afforded the retroactively designated FMLA leave; the district court did not err in dismissing her retaliation claim as invalid; the district court properly rejected plaintiff's alternative pretext theories; and, as plaintiff failed to present evidence creating an issue of fact as to whether EMC's non-discriminatory reasons were a pretext for FMLA retaliation, the district court properly granted summary judgment.

The Union filed a charge alleging that AFS had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of subsections 8(a)(1) and 8 (a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (a)(5). After a hearing, an ALJ held in favor of the Union and ordered AFS, inter alia, to bargain with the Union and pay damages. AFS appealed to the Board, which accepted the ALJ's factual findings and legal conclusions, altering only the remedies that the ALJ fashioned. The court held that the Board did not err in holding that the Union represented the AFS employees under section 9(a) of the Act, rather than under section 8(f). Accordingly, the court granted the petition to enforce the order of the Board.