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

Plaintiff, employed as a juvenile detention officer, filed suit against the County, alleging discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 12 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. Plaintiff also alleged that the County retaliated against her in violation of the ADA, Section 504, Arkansas law , and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. The County terminated plaintiff's employment because she could not meet the job requirement of lifting 40 pounds. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's claims of discrimination under the ADA and Section 504 because plaintiff was not a qualified individual where she could not perform the essential functions of her position with or without reasonable accommodation. Even if the court were to find that extending plaintiff's FMLA leave was a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, plaintiff failed to carry her burden of showing that she could perform the essential functions of her job with that accommodation. Likewise, the court agreed with the district court that the County was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's discrimination claim. The court further held that plaintiff failed to present a submissible case of retaliation under the ADA where plaintiff's request for additional time to obtain a new FMLA certification was not a reasonable accommodation, and therefore it was not protected activity. And because plaintiff still was unable to perform an essential function of her job at the end of her FMLA leave period, the County did not violate FMLA by terminating her after her FMLA expired. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Scruggs v. Pulaski County" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Wal-Mart, alleging disability discrimination, failure to continue to accommodate, retaliation, and harassment. After being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, plaintiff was transferred to a new position at Wal-Mart. The district court granted summary judgment to Wal-Mart on all claims. Plaintiff has conceded that the new overnight cashier position is less physically strenuous than stocking, and her acceptance of that position was accompanied by a $.20/hour raise. The court concluded that, because plaintiff failed to show she suffered an underlying adverse employment action, she has not made out a prima facie case of discrimination, and she cannot prove her claim that Wal-Mart failed to accommodate her disability; with temporal proximity alone to support her argument for pretext, plaintiff has failed to create a genuine issue for trial on her retaliation claim; in regard to her workplace harassment claim, plaintiff failed to identify any discriminatory statements made to her or any evidence sufficiently severe to affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of her employment; and plaintiff failed to successfully establish that she faced a hostile work environment where plaintiff offers no examples or evidence of an increased workload beyond stating that she had four pallets to stock one night. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kelleher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Andover appealed the district court's denial of its 28 U.S.C. 1782 petition for discovery to be used in a patent-infringement suit in Germany. The district court considered Andover’s petition in light of the considerations identified by the Supreme Court and concluded that three considerations weighed against an order of production: (1) 3M is a party to the parallel German infringement suit and the German court had said it would grant Andover’s discovery request if necessary to resolve the case; (2) the “highly sensitive nature of the requested discovery, and the lack of certainty that its confidentiality can be maintained," and (3) Andover’s apparent attempt to avoid or preempt an unfavorable decision on discovery by the German court. In this case, the German court is in a position to order the requested discovery if the information is needed, and the German court is best positioned to assess whether any disclosure can be accomplished without jeopardizing the sensitive trade secrets involved. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Andover's petition. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Andover Healthcare, Inc. v. 3M Company" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for aiding and abetting embezzlement from an agency receiving federal funds. The district court overruled defendant's objection to receiving a criminal history point for a previous uncounseled conviction, but varied downward from the advisory Guidelines range, sentencing defendant to 6 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant. Defendant attempts to show a constitutional error in his prior conviction by arguing that he was not advised of his right to counsel and therefore did not knowingly waive that right during the proceeding that led to his misdemeanor conviction. The record, however, is silent with regard to any evidence that would establish his factual claim. Because defendant failed to meet his burden of proving the factual basis upon which his legal argument relies, the district court did not err in calculating his criminal history score. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Dodson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants Barton, Weiss, and CACi, raising claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692d-f, alleging misrepresentations along with certain claims for interest and costs. The court concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply in this case where plaintiff seeks relief from neither a Missouri judgment nor an Illinois garnishment order. Rather, plaintiff alleges statutory violations seeking statutory penalties based on Barton’s actions in the process of obtaining the judgment and order. The court further concluded that, because equitable tolling does not apply, all of plaintiff’s FDCPA claims directed towards conduct that preceded the Illinois proceedings are time barred. Because Barton's use of the Illinois courts did not amount to an action "against the consumer," those actions were not subject to the FDCPA's venue restriction. The court affirmed as to these claims. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of claims that allege independent FDCPA violations in the Illinois proceedings related to the identity of Barton’s client and the amounts of interests and costs asserted; the court declined at the pleading stage of this case to apply state-law preclusion principles to these remaining claims due to the absence of briefing and the parties’ failure to clearly identify the state law applied by the Illinois court; and because federal claims remain, the court reversed the discretionary dismissal of the state law claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hageman v. Barton" on Justia Law

MikLin, owner and operator of a Jimmy John's franchise, petitioned for review of the Board's order holding that the company engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and (3). The court concluded that that the Board did not err in determining that MikLIn violated the Act by terminating or disciplining employees for engaging in protected concerted activity, and by soliciting the removal of protected material from public places, removing union literature from an unrestricted employee bulletin board, and encouraging employees on Facebook to harass union supporters. In regard to the Sandwich Poster campaign, the court concluded that the Board's decisions were supported by substantial evidence where the communications at issue were not made with either actual knowledge of its falsehood or with reckless disregard for its veracity, and the statements were not so disloyal or recklessly disparaging as to lose protection under the Act. In regard to the Facebook postings, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the postings were sufficiently linked to the employee’s protected activity. In regard to removal of the in-store posters, the record shows that MikLin had no policy as to what could be posted on the in-store bulletin boards, and management approval was not required. Therefore, MikLin's selective removal of the flyer and the charge was an unfair labor practice. Accordingly, the court granted the Board's application for enforcement. View "MikLin Enter., Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

MikLin, owner and operator of a Jimmy John's franchise, petitioned for review of the Board's order holding that the company engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and (3). The court concluded that that the Board did not err in determining that MikLIn violated the Act by terminating or disciplining employees for engaging in protected concerted activity, and by soliciting the removal of protected material from public places, removing union literature from an unrestricted employee bulletin board, and encouraging employees on Facebook to harass union supporters. In regard to the Sandwich Poster campaign, the court concluded that the Board's decisions were supported by substantial evidence where the communications at issue were not made with either actual knowledge of its falsehood or with reckless disregard for its veracity, and the statements were not so disloyal or recklessly disparaging as to lose protection under the Act. In regard to the Facebook postings, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the postings were sufficiently linked to the employee’s protected activity. In regard to removal of the in-store posters, the record shows that MikLin had no policy as to what could be posted on the in-store bulletin boards, and management approval was not required. Therefore, MikLin's selective removal of the flyer and the charge was an unfair labor practice. Accordingly, the court granted the Board's application for enforcement. View "MikLin Enter., Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Defendant, former president, CEO, and chairman of the board of Bixby, was convicted of four counts of mail fraud, eight counts of wire fraud, conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, witness tampering, and three counts of tax evasion. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant had the requisite intent to defraud Bixby investors; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the tax evasion counts; the district court committed no clear error in reasonably estimating the actual loss resulting from defendant’s fraud offenses as equaling the total amounts lost by Bixby investors who submitted Victim Impact Statements; the district court did not err by imposing a two-level enhancement because defendant abused a position of public or private trust under USSG 3B1.3; and, because the Commission has not made retroactive the amendments on which defendant wishes to rely, 18 U.S.C. 3742(g)(1) would apply if he were resentenced, making the requested remand a futile exercise. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Walker" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of asylum and voluntary departure. The court concluded that the BIA's findings regarding past persecution are supported by substantial evidence; petitioner failed to show why rather dated events provide an objectively reasonable basis for a present fear of particularized persecution directed at him personally on the basis of his political opinion; the court agreed with the BIA that the particular social group claimed by petitioner - “Guatemalan repatriates who have lived and worked in the United States for many years and are perceived to be wealthy” - is too amorphous because it turns on whether an individual is perceived as being wealthy; substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that petitioner failed to prove he and his family would be unable to relocate within Guatemala; the BIA did not err in concluding that the IJ abused his discretion in denying voluntary departure; and the court may not grant relief based on a re-translation of an extortion letter where the court's review is limited to the administrative record before the agency. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Cinto-Velasquez v. Lynch" on Justia Law

BN applied for an exemption permitting expeditious abandonment of a railroad line. The STB granted but then revoked an exemption prior to completion of the abandonment and instead authorized BN to enter into an “interim trail use/rail banking agreement” in accordance with the National Trails System Act (Trails Act), 16 U.S.C. 1247(d), as implemented by the STB in 49 C.F.R. 1152.29. In 2014, plaintiffs, ranchers who own properties underlying and surrounding the railway right-of-way easement, filed two separate actions against the State and the Department, seeking a declaration quieting title to the right-of-way because the easement terminated by operation of law when BN ceased railroad operations. The district court consolidated the two cases and concluded that plaintiffs' claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the STB, and granted Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that plaintiffs' claims are not within the STB’s exclusive jurisdiction, but that the Amended Complaints - alleging that defendants “stand in the shoes” of the BN, and therefore defendants cannot impose non-railroad restrictions on plaintiffs’ rights as servient landowners,- failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the court modified part of the district court judgment and otherwise affirmed. View "Trevarton v. South Dakota" on Justia Law