Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's sua sponte grant of judgment as a matter of law to defendants in an action brought by plaintiff against prison officials, alleging that they failed to protect him from his fellow inmates after he was labeled a snitch.Even assuming the court agreed with plaintiff that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) requires a motion, the court did not think that requirement is clear or obvious under its case law. The court concluded that the district court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the five defendants who were not on the Classification Committee. In this case, plaintiff cannot show that defendants acted with deliberate indifference by entrusting the decision to the Classification Committee—the prison's selected arbitrator. The court explained that, even if they disagreed with the choice, there is nothing to suggest that four of the defendants had any power to circumvent the ruling of the Classification Committee and it was a close call with the fifth defendant. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motions for continuance by ensuring an expeditious disposition of the case and while affording significant time to allow plaintiff to prepare. View "Axelson v. Watson" on Justia Law

After defendant, a police officer, shot plaintiff in the course of investigating a potential domestic disturbance, plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's excessive force claim, agreeing with the district court that genuine issues of material fact precluded a grant of qualified immunity. Construing the disputed record in plaintiff's favor, the court concluded that a jury could conclude that no reasonable officer would have thought deadly force was necessary in that moment to protect plaintiff's wife from imminent danger. Furthermore, plaintiff's demeanor and conduct are in dispute. In this case, defendant opened the door and instantaneously shot plaintiff. Therefore, under these circumstances, no reasonable officer would have believed that he had probable cause to use deadly force. Furthermore, plaintiff's right to be free from excessive force under these circumstances was also clearly established at the time. View "Banks v. Hawkins" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendant, a police officer, used excessive force against him during a traffic stop. A jury found in favor of plaintiff, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. Defendant appealed.The Eighth Circuit concluded that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict, defendant's prolonged use of his taser was not an objectively reasonable use of force. In this case, although plaintiff initially resisted defendant's attempts to remove him from the car, he did not physically hit or verbally threaten defendant. Furthermore, plaintiff, who was 17 years old at the time, posed at most a minimal safety threat to defendant. The court also concluded that plaintiff's right to be free from excessive, prolonged use of a taser was clearly established at the time. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the prolonged taser claim.The court rejected defendant's evidentiary claims of error, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony from a vocational rehabilitation expert and testimony from an economist based on the vocational expert's opinion. Finally, the court concluded that the district erred in reducing the punitive damages award. While the court concluded that the district court correctly found that the jury's initial punitive damages award was disproportionate, the court disagreed that the reduced award of $236,500 sufficiently reflected the reprehensibility of defendant's conduct. In this case, the 9:1 ratio comports with due process while achieving the statutory and regulatory goals of retribution and deterrence. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Masters v. Runnels" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota, alleging that the University constructively terminated her and subjected her to a hostile work environment. Plaintiff, the head coach of the women's cross-country and track-and-field teams, resigned after the University threatened to terminate her following an outside-law-firm's investigation into her alleged misconduct.The court concluded that, although plaintiff's factual allegations show the University treated her and her teams differently from other coaches and teams, the complaint does not plausibly give rise to the inference of discrimination on the basis of sex as the reason for her termination. Furthermore, even if the stated reason for her termination was pretextual, she has not stated a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. The court also concluded that plaintiff's allegations, though perhaps describing vile or inappropriate behavior, do not rise to the level of actionable hostile work environment as a matter of law. View "Warmington v. Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's action against numerous companies for violating the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) through their marketing of men's and women's antiperspirants. Plaintiff alleges that Conopco, Inc.—doing business as Unilever—discriminates based on gender in pricing two Dove product lines.The court concluded that plaintiff mistakes gender-based marketing for gender discrimination where she ignores the fact that the different scents, packaging, and labels make the products potentially attractive to different customers with different preferences. Because preference-based pricing is not necessarily an unfair practice, the MMPA does not prohibit defendants' pricing here. View "Schulte v. Conopco, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's pretrial rulings in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff after he was assaulted by a group of prison guards. The court concluded that the district court did not err in declining to admit a letter regarding one of the defendants, which discusses an incident that occurred more than two years after what happened in this case, because the letter contained other information which had no connection with the alleged assault of plaintiff and which had the potential to prejudice all defendants. Likewise, the court reached the same conclusion regarding the report. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give plaintiff's proposed, adverse-inference instruction regarding one of the defendant's non-participation, because it would have misstated the law, likely misled the jury, and unfairly prejudiced the remaining defendants. View "Trotter v. Shipley" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Atrium in an action brought by plaintiff, a former employee, alleging race discrimination, failure to promote, and hostile work environment in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA). Absent further instruction from the Iowa Supreme Court to the contrary, the court will continue to apply the McDonnell Douglas framework to ICRA discrimination claims at summary judgment.Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to present evidence of any situation in which a white Atrium employee took a hotel room out of service, made a key to it, and then allowed unregistered guests to gain possession of the key, without being fired as a result. Furthermore, there is no evidence of white Atrium employees engaging in comparably serious misconduct without experiencing similarly harsh employment consequences. Therefore, the court concluded that plaintiff has not shown that similarly situated employees outside of his protected class were treated more favorably than him after engaging in similar misconduct. The court also concluded that summary judgment on the failure to promote claim was warranted where plaintiff failed to present evidence showing that Atrium's stated reason for declining to promote him was pretextual. Finally, plaintiff's hostile work environment claim failed because he failed to show that he experienced the workplace as abusive or that he felt that the harassment was so severe that it in effect altered the terms of his employment. View "Carter v. Atrium Hospitality" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, high school students, filed suit against two Northwest Missouri State police officers for allegedly violating certain statutory and constitutional rights during the investigation of misconduct by plaintiffs attending a summer camp on the university campus. Plaintiffs' claims arose from an incident where the officers directed the high school coach to gather students in a room to hold them there "for interrogation" following a report that someone was photographing a female coach in one of the dormitory rooms.The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the officers' motion to dismiss the claims against them based on qualified immunity. The court concluded that, given the state of the law, a reasonable officer could have proceeded on the understanding that a student seizure is permissible if it is reasonable under the standard of New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 341 (1985). In this case, a reasonable officer could have believed that the seizure was reasonable where a reasonable officer could have believed that they were authorized to investigate the incident to comply with both Title IX and Missouri law regarding invasion of privacy. Furthermore, the seizure was reasonable in scope and duration. Finally, 18 U.S.C. 5033 and 5038 are inapplicable here, and thus the officers are entitled to dismissal on these claims. Finally, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the conspiracy claim. The court remanded with directions to dismiss the claims against the officers. View "T.S.H. v. Green" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who was employed with Andersen from 2000-2018, was terminated for violating lock-out, tag-out (LOTO) safety procedures. After plaintiff filed suit against Andersen, he voluntarily dismissed four of his eight claims and the district court granted summary judgment on the remaining four claims.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, concluding that Andersen did not violate the Minnesota Whistleblower Act by terminating his employment in retaliation for his previous sexual harassment and falsified documentation complaint. The court explained that plaintiff failed to show causation between the protected activity and his discharge, and summary judgment was therefore appropriate. The court also concluded that plaintiff was unable to establish the causal link necessary for a prima facia case of retaliation under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Finally, the court concluded that plaintiff's retaliation claim under the Family Medical Leave Act also failed for lack of causation. View "Lissick v. Andersen Corp." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the VA in an action brought by plaintiff under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging race discrimination, retaliation, constructive discharge, and a hostile work environment she experienced during her employment at the Kansas City VA.Applying the McDonnell Douglass burden-shifting framework, the court concluded that plaintiff's claims failed at the first step because she did not establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, or constructive discharge. In this case, many of the events plaintiff presents as adverse employment actions—the decision not to "board" the Coding Document Improvement Program (CDI) position, inadequate training on CDI duties, assignment of additional coding work, her performance review, and the written counseling—are not adverse employment actions for purposes of Title VII. View "Watson v. McDonough" on Justia Law