| Krakowski v. Allied Pilots Ass'n |
| Docket: 19-1816 Opinion Date: August 28, 2020 Judge: Stras Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law |
| Plaintiff filed suit against Allied Pilots in state court for conversion and unjust enrichment, arguing that he was entitled to keep his whole profit sharing payment rather than give some of it to the union for "dues." The union removed to federal court, contending that plaintiff's claims are preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The district court held that state law claims fell away due to preemption and the federal claims did not survive summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit reversed and held that the district court erred by relying on the complete-preemption doctrine, finding that the RLA wholly displaced plaintiff's state law claims. In this case, the RLA does not require disputes between an employee and a union to be heard by an adjustment board, so there is no federal cause of action at all, much less an exclusive one. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment and instructed the district court, on remand, to return this case to state court. |
| |
| Doe v. University of St. Thomas |
| Docket: 19-1594 Opinion Date: August 28, 2020 Judge: Kobes Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Education Law |
| Plaintiff filed suit asserting Title IX violations and various state law claims against the University after it began disciplinary proceedings that resulted in plaintiff's suspension. The disciplinary proceedings arose from a fellow student's accusation against plaintiff of sexual misconduct. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the University. The court held that, while the district court erred by rejecting Rollins v. Cardinal Stritch Univ., 626 N.W.2d 464, 470 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001), and formulating a reasonable care standard that no Minnesota court has adopted, even applying the more permissive reasonable care standard, no reasonable jury would find the investigators' actions showed bias against plaintiff. In this case, no reasonable jury would find bias because the investigators did question the accuser about inconsistencies in her story and found her to be credible. Furthermore, no implication of bias arises by asking the accuser to preserve evidence or by offering her mental health services. |
| |
| Thurmond v. Andrews |
| Docket: 19-1557 Opinion Date: August 28, 2020 Judge: Grasz Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law |
| Plaintiffs, six former inmates of the Faulkner County Detention Center, filed suit against the County and two jail employees under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that their conditions of confinement were unconstitutional because of mold in and around the jail's shower. The Eighth Circuit reversed in part and held that the district court erred in denying the individual jail employees summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court held that the only thing clearly established in this case is that the definition of the asserted constitutional right embraced by the district court — a right to sanitary prison conditions — was impermissibly broad. The court also held that a finding that such a right was clearly established based on this general definition was therefore in error. Because the right at issue has not been properly defined and there are genuine disputes of material fact at play, it is not possible for the court to determine whether the individual officers committed a constitutional violation in the detention center due to the presence of Cladosporium. Finally, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to reach the County's appeal where the question of whether the County was liable for failing to train its officers is not inextricably intertwined with the matter of qualified immunity. |
| |
| United States v. Golding |
| Docket: 19-1541 Opinion Date: August 28, 2020 Judge: Grasz Areas of Law: Criminal Law, White Collar Crime |
| The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for one count of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and four counts of health care fraud. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant entered into an agreement with others to create a medical testing lab that made money through illegal kickbacks. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that members of the conspiracy committed substantive violations and defendant, as a co-conspirator, was properly held liable for these substantive crimes committed in furtherance of the scheme. |
| |
| United States v. Croghan |
| Docket: 18-3709 Opinion Date: August 28, 2020 Judge: Lavenski R. Smith Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for receipt or attempted receipt of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not plainly err in admitting images of a female minor relative defendant had uploaded under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b); in striking an FBI agent's testimony regarding defendant's children; and by permitting the agent to explain why the FBI requested a no-knock warrant. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict convicting him of the knowing receipt of child pornography, as opposed to the lesser included offense of knowing access of child pornography. Finally, the court held that defendant's below-Guidelines sentence of 110 months' imprisonment was not substantively unreasonable where the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. |
| |
| United States v. Gant |
| Docket: 19-2366 Opinion Date: August 28, 2020 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| After defendant pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's Rehaif claim and held that the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights under the third prong of plain error review. In this case, at the change-of-plea hearing, defendant previously admitted that he had been convicted of three prior felonies but said he did not remember the other two. |
| |
| McKennan v. Meadowvale Dairy Employee Benefit Plan |
| Docket: 19-2163 Opinion Date: August 28, 2020 Judge: Steven M. Colloton Areas of Law: ERISA |
| The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's order requiring the Meadowvale Dairy Employee Benefit Plan to pay benefits and attorney's fees to Avera under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Avera alleged that the benefits at issue were due to a former employee of Meadowvale who received care at a hospital operated by Avera. The court held that, although the beneficiary assigned any and all causes of action to Avera, he never had a cause of action against the Plan. Therefore, Avera may not proceed against the Plan under ERISA as an assignee of a beneficiary or otherwise. In this case, after Meadowvale rescinded the beneficiary's coverage under the Plan, neither the employee nor an authorized representative of his exhausted internal remedies to challenge the decision. |
| |
| Al-Saadoon v. Barr |
| Docket: 19-1335 Opinion Date: August 28, 2020 Judge: Lavenski R. Smith Areas of Law: Immigration Law |
| In Al-Saadoon I, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of petitioners' (husband and wife) petitions for naturalization because husband engaged in unlawful employment and thus the couple never lawfully adjusted to permanent resident status. Petitioners then filed a Supplement A to Form I-485 with USCIS to adjust their status to lawful permanent residents nunc pro tunc. The court affirmed the district court's denial of petitioners' requests for nunc pro tunc adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction to review a discretionary denial of an adjustment of status application. The court explained that, because petitioners failed to adjust their status to lawful permanent residents, they cannot meet the requirements for naturalization. To the extent that petitioners attempt to relitigate the determination that they were unlawfully admitted to permanent resident status in 2002, they are barred by res judicata. The court also held that the district court correctly dismissed petitioner's Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program claim. Finally, petitioners' Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) claim fails because they did not assert a claim for relief under RFRA in their petition. |
| |
