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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security income to plaintiff. The court held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision to give little weight to plaintiffs' treating physicians because their opinions were vague and imprecise and did not provide any function-by-function analysis. Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision to give greater weight to the medical consultants' opinions than to the treating physicians' opinions.Finally, the vocational expert's answer to the first hypothetical question, regarding whether a hypothetical person—who could lift amounts that plaintiff could, sit and stand for periods that she could, and work in a workplace devoid of fumes that irritated her—could work, is substantial evidence because it is a response to a hypothetical with the impairments accepted as true by the ALJ and reflected in the residual functional capacity (RFC). However, the vocational expert's answer to the second hypothetical question, regarding whether a hypothetical person with the impairments plaintiff alleged could work, was not substantial evidence because the hypothetical person in the second hypothetical did not have the same RFC as plaintiff. View "Kraus v. Saul" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana and money laundering. The court held that the district court did not err in imposing a four-level increase under USSG 3B1.1 for a leadership or organizer role in the offense and a two-level increase under USSG 2D1.1(b)(16)E) for committing the drug offenses as part of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a livelihood. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a downward departure and by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. In this case, the district court thoroughly discussed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors. View "United States v. Ford" on Justia Law

After the railroad fired a train engineer for defecating on a train-car connector, an arbitration board reinstated him. The railroad sought to vacate the arbitration award in federal court, but the district court upheld the engineer's reinstatement by enforcing the award.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the Board applied the governing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and acted within the scope of its authority. The court rejected the railroad's contention that the remedy creates new prerequisites to the CBA's discipline requirements. The court shared the district court's bewilderment at the Board's conclusion that a company cannot fire someone for purposefully defecating on company property. Even so, the court cannot review the merits. View "Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Golden China on plaintiff's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he has Article III standing to bring his ADA claim. In this case, plaintiff unequivocally acknowledged in his deposition that his intent in visiting Red Wing was not to patronize Golden China but rather to test various establishments for ADA violations. He had never been to Golden China and his amorphous level of intention to return to the restaurant is, at most, aspirational, which is insufficient to establish an injury in fact. Even if the court were to accept plaintiff's post hoc attempt to establish an injury in fact, the court would still find that his declaration asserts nothing more than an uncertain intention to some day return to Golden China. View "Smith v. Golden China of Red Wing, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota alleging retaliation and sex discrimination under Title IX. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that the University violated Title IX by (1) retaliating against her for supporting a former coach in a sexual harassment investigation by not allowing her to redshirt; and (2) discriminating against her on the basis of sex.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the University's motion to dismiss because plaintiff did not have an actionable claim for retaliation under Title IX and she failed to show that she was treated differently because of her sex. In this case, plaintiff failed to allege that she engaged in a protected activity, and no part of Title IX designates participation in a sexual harassment investigation on the side of the accused as protected activity. In regard to plaintiff's claim that she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex when she was denied the right to redshirt, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a claim of sex discrimination in violation of Title IX. View "Du Bois v. The Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment on her claims against the County, her former employer, alleging that it retaliated against her for participating in protected activity in violation of Title VII and the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA).The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Title VII suspension-based claim, concluding that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. In this case, plaintiff failed to show that she engaged in statutorily protected activity because she did not communicate or report any sexual harassment before her suspension. In regard to the termination-based claim, the court applied the burden-shifting McDonnell Douglas framework and concluded that, assuming plaintiff made a prima facie case, the County articulated several legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for her discharge. Furthermore, plaintiff has not shown that the County's reasons are sufficiently intertwined or fishy that rebutting only some of the reasons discredits them all. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the termination-based claim under Title VII. However, given the relatively novel questions of state law, the court dismissed the MWA claims without prejudice so that they can be taken up by the Minnesota state courts. View "Kempf v. Hennepin County" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit dismissed defendants' appeal of the district court's decision permanently enjoining as unconstitutional a South Dakota law regulating ballot-petition circulation, as well as plaintiffs' cross-appeal of the district court's failure to decide all of their claims. While defendants' appeal was pending, the South Dakota Legislature enacted SB 180, which substantially changed the ballot-petition process, replacing HB 1094. Therefore, defendants' appeal is moot and the court lacked jurisdiction. The court also concluded, based on considerations of public interest, that defendants failed to show their entitlement to vacatur and the court declined to vacate the district court's judgment. In regard to plaintiffs' cross-appeal, the court concluded that the district court has not yet decided all of plaintiffs' claims and thus the court lacked jurisdiction over the cross-appeal based on the lack of a final order. View "SD VOICE v. Noem" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for four counts of mail fraud, three counts of wire fraud, and one count of tax fraud. The court rejected defendant's numerous claims of Napue violations, concluding that the statements at issue were corrected and the allegedly false testimony was stricken from the record. In regard to the remaining Napue claims, the court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that the violations are harmless. The court also rejected defendant's Brady claim, concluding that the district court correctly determined that the government's failure to inform defendant of the reverse proffer did not constitute a Brady violation because the undisclosed evidence, even if favorable to defendant, was not material.The court also concluded that defendant failed to show that the district court committed clear error by concluding that the government did not violate the Jencks Act by failing to disclose an agent's report because the report included no statements made by government witnesses that related to the subject matter of their testimony. The court further concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's fraud convictions, and defendant is not entitled to a new trial based on the cumulative impact of alleged trial errors. Finally, the court concluded that defendant failed to show the existence of any legal error or clear factual error in the district court's fraud-loss calculation, and imposing an order of restitution equal to the amount of the loss was not erroneous. View "United States v. Ruzicka" on Justia Law

Sarasota filed suit against the Officials, seeking prospective relief, alleging that Missouri's liquor control laws, by preventing out-of-state retailers from shipping directly to Missouri consumers, discriminate against interstate commerce and citizens of other States in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Sarasota's amended complaint. The court concluded that, although plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Missouri Liquor Control Act, the district court did not err in dismissing the action for failure to state viable claims under the dormant Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The court agreed with the Sixth Circuit that the Supreme Court in Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460, 476-86 (2005), and Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas, 139 S. Ct. 2449, 2462-70 (2019), did not decide that essential elements of the three-tiered system are subject to frontal attack under the dormant Commerce Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The court explained that those seeking a more consumer-oriented organization of alcohol industries must turn to state-by-state political action on behalf of consumers who are hurt by these laws. View "Sarasota Wine Market, LLC v. Schmitt" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife filed suit against two police officers after plaintiff found the officers, guns drawn, searching their home without a warrant at 3:00 a.m. The district court denied the officers qualified immunity and granted plaintiff and his wife partial summary judgment on their claims that the officers unlawfully entered and searched their home and its curtilage, concluding that the circumstances were insufficient to create an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for some but not all their actions on the night in question. The court concluded that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for their entry into plaintiffs' curtilage under the community caretaker function. In this case, the officers had reason to believe that an intoxicated thief was in the vicinity, and an open garage door was a likely place where he could enter and perhaps damage property. Furthermore, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity under the community caretaker exception because an open door into a home late at night, when no one had responded to their repeated knocking at the outside doors, arguably warranted a limited protective entry. However, the community caretaker exception cannot justify the severe, warrantless intrusion into the home in this case where the officers observed no signs of criminal activity; the officers were responding to a call from a cab driver reporting that a petty thief had run, not that a burglar was on the prowl, and reasonable officers acting as community caretakers should have left the home. The court explained that it was clearly established by controlling Fourth Amendment precedents that the officers' full blown search of the entire home without a warrant was objectively unreasonable. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Luer v. Clinton" on Justia Law