Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants in an action brought by plaintiff after he was terminated as an employee of the Arkansas State Treasurer. The court held that plaintiff's initial argument regarding his defamation, false light, and invasion of privacy claims were without merit because the district court had denied summary judgment on these issues; the district court appropriately granted Defendant Milligan, in his official capacity as Treasurer of the State of Arkansas, summary judgment on plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act claim where the Treasurer neither accepted nor distributed federal financial assistance; the district court's jury instructions on defamation were not erroneous; the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to give plaintiff's proposed jury instructions regarding invasion of privacy, agency, and cat's paw theory as to the Americans with Disabilities Act claim; and plaintiff's claims regarding whistleblowing activities were not supported by the record and were therefore rejected by the court. View "Singer v. Harris" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), alleging that the employer violated USERRA by failing to promptly reemploy her and the violation was willful. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting relief to plaintiff under USERRA, holding that the district court did not clearly err by finding that the employer acted willfully and plaintiff was entitled to liquidated damages. View "Mace v. Willis" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted the employee's petition for review of the Board's order finding that the company violated sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. The employee argued that it did not fire an employee for union activity in violation of the NLRA, but that he was fired for misusing the employee's Wi-Fi and sleeping on the job. The court held that the Board did not hold the General Counsel to its burden of proving that discriminatory animus toward the employee's protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the decision to discharge him. The court also held that the Board erred in determining the employer's post-termination interviews of the discharged employee's co-worker were an unfair labor practice as the questioning could not be said to reasonably tend to unlawfully coerce the interviewee. Therefore, the parts of the petition addressing the warning was enforced, but the Board's findings about the firing and the interviews were set aside. The court remanded for the district court to apply Wright Line to determine whether the company violated the Act in terminating the employee. View "Tschiggfrie Properties, Ltd. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the city in an action brought by plaintiff, the former city attorney for Minot, North Dakota. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion seeking to sanction the city for its alleged malfeasance in losing evidence. The court held that plaintiff's sex-based harassment claim failed because the only articulated basis for concluding that she was experiencing sex-based harassment was that the city manager unfavorably compared her work style to the previous city attorney; plaintiff's sex-based retaliation claim failed because she never made a report of sex stereotyping, so such a report could not have been the reason the city fired her; plaintiff did not suffer reputational harm from the allegedly false statements about her job performance and termination in the affidavits accompanying the city's summary judgment motion; and plaintiff cited no authority for the novel proposition that a defendant in a civil action can violate due process simply by submitting evidence in court. Finally, the court held that plaintiff's challenge to the district court's denial of her motion for additional time to respond was not properly before the court; plaintiff forfeited any right to challenge the award of litigation costs; and plaintiff's unopposed motion to seal certain portions of the record was granted. View "Auer v. City of Minot" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed DNRB's conviction of a Class B misdemeanor for willfully violating two safety regulations and causing an employee's death. The court held that, because the employee was not connected to an anchorage point before he fell, there was sufficient evidence that DNRB violated 29 C.F.R. 1926.760(a)(l) and (b)(1); sufficient evidence supported the district court's finding of willful violation by the company; and the factual findings were sufficient to support a conclusion that DNRB's failure to comply with the safety standards caused the employee's death. The court rejected DNRB's challenges to other-acts evidence and FRE 404(b) evidence; the district court considered and applied the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors before imposing a $500,000 fine; and the district court could impose the maximum fine allowed by law even though it recognized the likelihood DNRB, which had ceased operations, might not be able to pay. View "United States v. DNRB, Inc." on Justia Law

The district court granted Federated's motion for summary judgment after determining that plaintiff's disclosures did not qualify as protected reports under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA). The Minnesota Supreme Court recently issued Friedlander v. Edwards Lifescis., LLC, 900 N.W.2d 162, 166 (Minn. 2017), which explained that the 2013 amendment to the Minnesota Whistleblower Act eliminated the judicially created requirement that a putative whistleblower act with the purpose of exposing an illegality. In light of Friedlander, the Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded for reconsideration of summary judgment. View "Scarborough v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from the DOL's investigation of possible violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by La Piedad. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of the DOL's motion to hold La Piedad in civil contempt for failing to produce documents identifying other businesses owned by La Piedad's shareholders. The court held that the DOL failed to meet its burden to introduce evidence that would support a subpoena to produce documents not in La Piedad's possession, custody, or control. View "Hugler v. La Piedad Corp." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for DFJ on his age discrimination and retaliation claims brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA); (2) disability discrimination and retaliation claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and (3) state-law claim for age and disability discrimination and retaliation brought under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 (ACRA).The court held that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his federal claims where his termination played no part in the initial EEOC charge because the right-to-sue letter preceded the date of the termination; plaintiff's ACRA claim failed because no genuine issues of material fact exist on whether plaintiff was qualified to do the essential job functions of his position and whether the termination was due to his disability. The court also held that plaintiff's hostile work environment claim failed because the alleged harassment was not severe enough to support his claim, and plaintiff's ADA claims also failed because he was unable to perform the essential functions of his job, with or without accommodation, and he failed to show but-for causation as to retaliation. View "Moses v. Dassault Falcon Jet Corp." on Justia Law

Brazil spent over three decades working for the Arkansas Department of Human Services. A 2010 disagreement with her supervisor eventually led her to seek a transfer to another division. When she did not receive a transfer, she sued the Department and several officials for alleged civil rights violations. None of her claims survived summary judgment. Brazil’s work environment did not improve. Brazil believes that she received lower performance evaluations in retaliation for the lawsuit. Brazil’s supervisors reassigned her from performing traditional administrative-assistant tasks to working in a document-scanning room, which required heavy lifting, long periods of sitting, and repetitious activities. Though her official title remained the same, Brazil regarded the assignment as a demotion because it required manual labor and diminished her opportunities for promotion. Brazil filed suit alleging retaliation and racial discrimination. A year into the litigation, Brazil changed positions. In her current job, Brazil reports to different supervisors and performs only administrative-assistant duties. The district court dismissed all of Brazil’s claims, except those against her former supervisors, which it rejected on summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit concluded that her claims were moot, vacated, and instructed the district court to dismiss the claims. View "Brazil v. Arkansas Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Walmart in an action alleging employment discrimination. The court held that plaintiff failed to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) violation. The court also held that plaintiff's failure to file his EEOC claim within 180 days was not the result of any misconduct by Walmart. In this case, failing to respond to a settlement demand made ten days before the statutory deadline, and accompanied by a statement that the employee would file a charge with the EEOC if the matter could not be settled, was not conduct that the employer should unmistakably have understood would cause the employee to miss the filing deadline. View "Rodriguez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law