Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiff's former employer, Con-E-Co, on plaintiff's sex discrimination claim, her sexual harassment claim, and her retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act.The court held that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination because she did not demonstrate that she met Con-E-Co's legitimate job expectations or that Con-E-Co treated her differently than similarly situated male employees; the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Con-E-Co regarding her sexual harassment claim based on vulgar behavior directed at her by her coworkers, because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she subjectively perceived the alleged harassment as abusive; and plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation in response to either her race discrimination or sex discrimination complaints. View "Gibson v. Concrete Equipment Co., Inc." on Justia Law

After Map Kong was fatally shot by police in Burnsville, Minnesota, plaintiff filed suit against the city and the officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law. The district court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and official immunity.The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that the district court erred in denying the officers qualified immunity. The court held that, even if the facts showed that the officers had violated Kong's Fourth Amendment right, the law at the time of the shooting did not clearly establish the right. In this case, Kong ran toward bystanders with a knife against the officers' repeated orders to drop the weapon; there was at least one pedestrian visible on the body-camera footage; and a steady flow of vehicles through the parking lot meant that citizens might quickly approach or step out of their vehicles. Therefore, the court held that a reasonable officer would have believed the law permitted shooting Kong under these circumstances. The court also held that, even if the officers acted negligently, they did not intentionally disregard the police department's policy on crisis intervention for persons. Therefore, the officers are entitled to official immunity and the district court erred in denying summary judgment on the state-law negligence claim. Furthermore, the city is entitled to vicarious official immunity. View "Sok Kong v. City of Burnsville" on Justia Law

After an officer shot and killed Roy Lee Richards, Jr., his estate filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the officer's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, holding that it has authority to decide the purely legal issue of whether the facts as alleged by plaintiff and found or assumed by the district court constitute a violation of clearly established law.On the merits, the court held that the officer's use of deadly force was not objectively reasonable where the officer did not have probable cause to believe Richards was not pointing the weapon at someone and wielding it in an otherwise menacing fashion. Rather, Richards had retreated. Furthermore, the officer's failure to warn before shooting Richards exacerbated the circumstances. The court also held that it was clearly established at the time that the officer's use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable in light of the circumstances of this case. View "Cole v. Hutchins" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, Allina, for race and national origin discrimination as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to the discrimination claims, holding that the record demonstrates that Allina considered plaintiff's race only to ensure that any corrective action was not based on racial discrimination; without direct evidence of discrimination, the court relied on the burden shifting McDonnell Douglas analysis; and, assuming plaintiff established a prima facie case, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Allina's stated reason for terminating her was pretext.The court explained that nothing in Allina's Violence-Free Workplace policy or other policies prohibit Allina from treating some offenses as more severe than others and selecting a corrective action that it believes is proportional to the level of severity for the violation. In this case, Allina's response to plaintiff's grievance and the deposition of an Allina human resources director make clear that Allina believed that pushing a coworker was more severe than throwing a lab coat at a co-worker and that plaintiff's behavior justified a more severe punishment. View "Findlator v. Allina Health Clinics" on Justia Law

After the district court granted petitioner partial habeas relief, both petitioner and the state appealed. The Eighth Circuit agreed with the district court that petitioner's guilt-and-penalty ineffective-assistance claims were procedurally defaulted. However, the court held that no procedural default was triggered in the initial Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37 proceedings. In this case, habeas relief cannot be granted on petitioner's guilt-and-penalty ineffective-assistance claims because he cannot establish cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.The court also held that the district court did not err in denying petitioner a hearing for his jury-pool ineffective-assistance claim where petitioner received a constitutionally adequate jury and he was not prejudiced. Finally, the court held that petitioner's McCoy-type claim is procedurally defaulted and the court rejected his request for a hearing. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Thomas v. Payne" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, his three children, and Stop Child Protection Services from Legally Kidnapping filed suit against the county, DCSS, nine county officials, and three officials. Plaintiffs' constitutional, federal, and state law claims stemmed from a Child in Need of Protection of Services (CHIPS) proceeding by DCSS.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the facial constitutionality of three Minnesota child welfare statutes; plaintiff was not entitled to monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983, because he failed to establish a due process violation, an equal protection claim, and municipal liability and conspiracy; and the children are also not entitled to damages under section 1983. The court also held that, even if the complaint was sufficiently pled and established a constitutional violation, defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity. Furthermore, the court held that no conduct by the individual defendants, as alleged in the amended complaint, rose to the level of maliciousness required to deny official immunity under Minnesota law. Finally, plaintiffs are not entitled to declaratory relief. View "Mitchell v. Dakota County Social Services" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 and concurrently sought a stay of execution. The district court entered an order granting the motion for stay of execution on the basis that it required more time to consider the merits of petitioner's claims.The Eighth Circuit questioned the applicability of the authorities the district court relied on to enter a stay solely on the basis of time constraints that purportedly prevented even a preliminary consideration of the merits of the two issues petitioner has raised to determine whether he has a significant likelihood of succeeding on either of them. Accordingly, the court vacated the stay of execution and remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition for habeas corpus relief, because the court saw no possibility of success on the merits of either of petitioner's competency claim and actual innocence claim. View "Barton v. Warden Stange" on Justia Law

After an ATF agent shot and killed Myron Pollard during an undercover operation, Pollard's mother and personal representative of his estate filed suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and the agent under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The district court held in favor of the United States and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the agent.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment on the FTCA claim, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to draw a negative inference from deleted data against the United States. In this case, the district court's finding that the ATF did not act in bad faith in destroying the original records of the shooting is supported by evidence, and plaintiff proffered no evidence to support an inference that the original recordings were intentionally destroyed to suppress the truth or to contradict any of the government's evidence. The court also held that, in light of the facts, the district court properly determined that the agent reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to protect himself and the other agents from the vehicle and that he had acted reasonably by firing his service weapon. The court held that the FTCA judgment barred plaintiff's Bivens action and remanded to the district court with directions to vacate the judgment for the agent on the Bivens claim and to dismiss the claim. View "White v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Ozark in an action brought by plaintiff under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 (ACRA).The court assumed without deciding that plaintiff satisfied her burden at step one of the McDonnell Douglas framework in establishing a prima facie case of age and sex discrimination, and held that Ozark articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiff's termination. In this case, Ozark satisfied its burden by presenting evidence that the decisionmaker terminated plaintiff because of her "rudeness and insubordination which culminated in a meeting in which she behaved abominably." Finally, plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding pretext. The court also held that the fact that plaintiff's successor is male and twenty-two years younger than her cannot, by itself, create an inference that plaintiff was terminated based on her sex and age. View "Main v. Ozark Health, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner based on his claim that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial when it briefly closed the courtroom to spectators. The district court denied relief based on the ground that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.The court agreed and held that it was not objectively unreasonable for the Minnesota Supreme Court to deem it constitutional under the Sixth Amendment for the trial court to explain the parameters of an earlier public order on evidentiary issues in a brief nonpublic proceeding before the jury was sworn. View "Smith v. Titus" on Justia Law