Latest 3 Cases: Yearns v. Koss Construction Co. (Civil Rights), United States v. Delorme (Criminal Law), DaPron v. Spire Inc. Retirement Plans ...

Reflections on the Movement in California to Repeal the State’s Ban on Affirmative Action

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar offers three observations on a measure recently approved by the California legislature that would, if approved by the voters, repeal Proposition 209, the voter initiative that has prohibited affirmative action by the state and its subdivisions since its passage in 1996. Amar praises the California legislature for seeking to repeal Prop 209 and for seeking to do so using the proper procedures, and he suggests that if Prop 209 is repealed, legal rationales for the use of race should be based not only on the value of diversity (as they have been for some time now), but also on the need to remedy past wrongs against Black Americans.

Read More

Yearns v. Koss Construction Co.

Docket: 19-1316

Opinion Date: July 1, 2020

Judge: Bobby E. Shepherd

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

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Koss in an action brought by plaintiff, a former employee, alleging that Koss terminated her employment in retaliation for her complaints about pay discrimination based on sex in violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA). The court held that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext. In this case, plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence as to the question of whether there was no basis in fact for Koss's proffered reason for her termination: there was lack of work at the project. The court also held that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether a retaliatory reason more likely motivated the manager's decision to terminate her.

United States v. Delorme

Docket: 19-2374

Opinion Date: July 1, 2020

Judge: Raymond W. Gruender

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for aggravated sexual abuse. The court held that the trial judge did not plainly err by not recusing himself sua sponte. Even if it considered defendant's recusal arguments despite the fact that he untimely raises them for the first time on appeal, the court held that he has not shown that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. In this case, the statements to which defendant cites do not show that the judge's disposition was so extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment. The court also rejected defendant's evidentiary challenges, holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the judge to allow an agent to testify as a lay witness about his experience in forensic interviews under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, and to not allow defendant to question the agent about an incident involving a white pick up trick. Finally, defendant failed to show plain error in the judge's decision to allow the agent to testify about his opinion that defendant was guilty based on the agent's interview with defendant.

DaPron v. Spire Inc. Retirement Plans Committee

Docket: 19-2166

Opinion Date: July 1, 2020

Judge: Kobes

Areas of Law: ERISA

Plaintiff filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) alleging that the Committee wrongfully denied his disability claim under its Employees' Retirement Plan and breached its fiduciary duty by failing to conduct a full and fair review of his medical records when reconsidering his claim. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the Plan, holding that the district court properly found that the Committee did not breach its fiduciary duty by failing to review the medical records. The court rejected defendant's claim that the Committee offered different rationales for denying his claim and held that the Committee's denial letters consistently state that the application was denied as untimely because it was not made before or in connection with plaintiff's separation.