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

Plaintiff filed suit against the police chief, the city, and other public officials, alleging violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA). After the police chief admitted liability for six violations of the Act, the jury awarded plaintiff punitive damages. The district court ruled that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that the city was directly liable for the violations, but authorized the jury's finding that the city was vicariously liable for the police chief's actions.The Eighth Circuit affirmed and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that plaintiff's proposed class failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3); the district court properly refused to entertain direct liability against the city where the police chief acted for personal reasons, not under the auspices of official policymaking authority, and thus his actions did not represent a policy of the city; the district court correctly construed the civil action provisions of the Act to incorporate background tort-related rules of vicarious liability; the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence at trial; and the district court did not err in declining to award requested costs. The court rejected plaintiff's remaining claims and denied the city's motion to strike portions of plaintiff's appendix and brief. View "Orduno v. Pietrzak" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment in an action challenging the decision of the Pine Bluff Arsenal (PBA) not to hire plaintiff. Under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the court held that plaintiff failed to show that PBA's reasons for hiring other candidates were pretextual. In this case, no reasonable factfinder could conclude that the decision to hire other candidates was motivated by race, where such a conclusion would require speculation because plaintiff has not produced sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable inference of discrimination. View "Farver v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that defendant's prior convictions for two counts of distributing cocaine base were properly considered separate predicate offenses because they would have been punctuated events within the conspiracy. The court also held that the district court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant used or possessed the revolver in connection with a crime of violence. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against NPC, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and corresponding ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). Plaintiff, who has cerebral palsy and requires a wheelchair for mobility, alleged that NPC's restaurant failed to make its place of public accommodation fully accessible to persons with disabilities.The Eighth Circuit held that plaintiff's parking lot violations claim was moot, because NPC corrected the access aisles the month after plaintiff filed his complaint. The court also affirmed the dismissing of the three other claims, because plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the remaining architectural barriers. In this case, he never entered the building at issue and never suffered any injury. The court held that the district court erroneously concluded that plaintiff had standing to challenge all of the alleged barriers and thus dismissed the case with prejudice. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Dalton v. NPC International, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the employer in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Iowa Civil Rights Act for retaliation, discrimination, and hostile work environment.The court held that summary judgment on the retaliation claim was proper under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Even assuming plaintiff established a prima facie showing of retaliation, substantial evidence in the record supported the employer's proffered reason for its termination of plaintiff: she repeatedly micromanaged and interfered with other employees. Therefore, plaintiff failed to show that the employer's reason for her termination was pretextual. The court also held that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment based on sex, because her actions demonstrated that she did not personally experience offensive or unwelcome harassment. Furthermore, plaintiff's claim for hostile work environment based on a protected activity failed, because she failed to show that she experienced harassment so severe or pervasive as to constitute a materially adverse action. Finally, plaintiff waived her discrimination claims. View "Mahler v. First Dakota Title Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's life sentence for serious drug trafficking and firearms crimes imposed after resentencing, holding that the district court was aware of the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and considered them in imposing the sentence; assuming without deciding that defendant raised a proper objection to the adequacy of the district court's sentencing explanation, there was no procedural error; the district court provided an individualized explanation for defendant's sentence by discussing the staggering magnitude of defendant's crimes and his efforts at rehabilitation; and defendant's within-Guidelines life sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court acted within its discretion in concluding that the gravity of defendant's crimes and the need for adequate general deterrence outweighed other factors and warranted a sentence at the top of the range. View "United States v. Duke" on Justia Law

Six Native American plaintiffs filed suit challenging portions of North Dakota's election statutes, requiring a voter to present a specific form of identification at the polls before receiving a ballot. The district court enjoined the Secretary from enforcing certain statutory requirements statewide.The Eighth Circuit held that at least one of the plaintiffs had standing to raise a facial challenge to the statute. On the merits, the court held that plaintiffs' facial challenge to the residential street address requirement likely fails, and that the statewide injunction as to that provision cannot be justified as a form of as-applied relief; the statute's requirement to present an enumerated form of identification does not impose a burden on voters that justifies a statewide injunction to accept additional forms of identification; and the record is insufficient to justify enjoining the Secretary from enforcing the supplemental documents provision statewide. Accordingly, the court vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. View "Brakebill v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's dismissal of petitioner's appeal of an IJ's order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that the IJ relied on personal beliefs and perceived common knowledge to reach unfounded adverse conclusions regarding petitioner's faith, and the IJ gave no weight to translation issues in the proceeding. Consequently, the IJ's credibility determinations were not supported by cogent reasons for disbelief and the BIA erred in upholding these findings. The panel vacated the removal order and remanded for a new credibility determination. View "Jinfeng Tian v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Norac in an action brought by plaintiff, a Norac employee, alleging claims of employment discrimination following her termination. The court held that plaintiff failed to meet her burden of presenting evidence that created a fact question as to whether Norac's proffered reason for her termination was pretextual, and thus summary judgment was appropriate. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion to strike an email and its admission did not prejudice plaintiff. View "Lacey v. Norac, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Nationwide in an action brought by plaintiff, an employee of Nationwide, alleging discrimination against her on the basis of her sex and her age. The court held that plaintiff failed to show Nationwide's legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for not selecting her for vacant positions and promotions were pretexts for age or gender bias. In this case, Nationwide's treatment of a younger male employee similarly to plaintiff was the clearest example of a record reflecting a displeased manager rather than discrimination based on age or gender. View "Heisler v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law