Latest 3 Cases: Pribyl v. County of Wright (Civil Rights), United States v. Crumble (Criminal Law), York v. Wellmark, Inc. (ERISA)

A Backward- and Forward-Looking Assessment of the Supreme Court’s “Faithless Elector” Cases: Part One in a Two-Part Series

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

In this first of a two-part series of columns about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in the “faithless elector” cases, Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar expresses disappointment that the majority opinion—authored by Justice Elena Kagan—and concurring opinion—by Justice Clarence Thomas—are not as well reasoned or careful as they could be. Amar points out some of the ways in which the opinions fall short, noting some of the arguments that merited more discussion, or at least more thorough consideration.

Read More

Pribyl v. County of Wright

Docket: 18-3743

Opinion Date: July 13, 2020

Judge: Jane Louise Kelly

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging a sex discrimination claim for a failure to promote against the County of Wright and the Wright County Sheriff's Department under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the County, holding that plaintiff failed to present evidence that one of the reasons for the chief deputy's actions in not promoting plaintiff was gender animus; plaintiff failed to argue that the interview notes show that the other panelists' negative impressions of her were pretextual, or that the chief deputy was somehow responsible for their negative impressions; and plaintiff failed to point to any evidence of gender animus from the other panelists. The court also held that the district court did not err by concluding that plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to her cat's-paw theory.

United States v. Crumble

Docket: 19-2197

Opinion Date: July 13, 2020

Judge: Raymond W. Gruender

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of ammunition. The court held that defendant failed to meet his burden to prove that his substantial rights were affected by the Rehaif error. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the government to present photos of individual frames of the surveillance video and there was no Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16 violation. Finally, the court held that defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court carefully considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, including both the mitigating and aggravating factors.

York v. Wellmark, Inc.

Docket: 19-1705

Opinion Date: July 13, 2020

Judge: James B. Loken

Areas of Law: ERISA

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action, asserting breach of contract claims under Iowa law and breach of fiduciary duty claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), based on allegations that Wellmark violated the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (ACA) mandate's cost-sharing and "information and disclosure" requirements. The district court dismissed the information and disclosure claims for failure to state a claim and granted Wellmark summary judgment on the cost-sharing claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed and held that the district court accurately noted that neither the ACA's statutory mandate nor its implementing regulations requires the disclosure of information -- including a list of providers -- or prohibits "administrative barriers" or "inconsistent guidance." Rather, the mandate provides that group health plans and health insurance issuers "shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for" preventive health services. The court also held that the summary judgment record established that defendant provided plaintiffs qualified, available in-network providers of comprehensive lactation support and consulting services and did not violate the ACA's cost-sharing mandate.