Articles Posted in U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

by
Plaintiff and his parents filed suit against the District alleging violations of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794 and 794a, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the District. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court because plaintiff failed to present evidence of bad faith or gross misjudgment by the District. View "B.M., et al. v. So. Callaway R-II School Dist." on Justia Law

by
After 15-year-old B.K. was barred from showing livestock at 4-H exhibitions, B.K.'s father filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the unincorporated 4-H Association and two 4-H officials. The district court granted preliminary injunctive relief from the claimed denial of B.K.'s constitutional right to procedural due process. The court inferred that 4-H membership and participation was a "right or status" open to all South Dakota children interested in a career in agriculture, subject to reasonable, non-discriminatory terms; the record clearly demonstrated that the ban deprived B.K. of the opportunity to participate in a public program that was important to her education and career development and from which she obtained significant personal income; and, therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that B.K. had a fair chance of proving that defendants published a defamatory ruling that deprived her of a right or status conferred by state law and that she was entitled to the constitutional protection of the Due Process Clause. Further, B.K. was not afforded minimal procedural due process protection; there was a sufficient showing of the threat of irreparable injury; and the balance of the equities and the public interest supported the issuance of the injunction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Kroupa v. Nielsen, et al." on Justia Law

by
Plaintiffs ("Parents") filed suit against Educators seeking a declaratory judgment that the Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 1989, Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-206(f)(1), violated the Equal Protection Clause and an injunction transferring their children to another school district. The court concluded that Parents' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot because the Arkansas General Assembly enacted the Public School Choice Act of 2013, Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-1901 et seq., which repealed the 1989 Act in its entirety. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded with directions to dismiss. View "Teague, et al. v. Arkansas Board of Education, et al." on Justia Law

by
Plaintiffs filed suit against the District alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 706 and 794a. Plaintiffs' claims involved disputes with the District over the manner in which the District implemented individualized education programs. The court concluded that plaintiffs were required to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400-1491, before filing their ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims in the district court. Further, the futility, inadequate remedy, and contrary to law exceptions were not applicable in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant summary judgment in favor of the District. View "J.B., et al. v. Avilla R-XIII School District" on Justia Law

by
The Committee sued the NCAA for interfering with the University of North Dakota's use of the Fighting Sioux name, logo, and imagery. The district court treated the NCAA's motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the NCAA. The court concluded that the Committee had not shown that the NCAA acted with discriminatory intent; the Committee was not denied due process by the NCAA because, as a nonmember, it was entitled to none from the NCAA; and the NCAA's act neither violated the laws of the land nor plainly violated its own constitution and bylaws. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Spirit Lake Tribe of Indians, et al v. The NCAA" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiffs, on behalf of their son, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Missouri Constitution, alleging that the district, the superintendent, the principal, and the sheriff violated the son's constitutional rights by briefly separating him from his backpack during a drug dog exercise in his high school. The district court granted summary judgment to the district, its officials, and the sheriff. The court concluded that the brief separation of the son and his belongings was reasonable and did not deprive him of a constitutionally protected right and therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the district and its officials. The court also held that the sheriff was not liable under section 1983 in his individual or official capacity where he did not participate in the drug procedure at the school, there was no evidence that the sheriff failed to train or supervise the deputies who conducted the drug dog surveys, and there was no evidence that the sheriff's office should have believed that its procedures or actions were likely to result in a constitutional violation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Burlison, et al v. Springfield Public Schools, et al" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff brought suit against the University alleging that the University, as her former employer, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112, 12203, by refusing to accommodate her mental and physical disabilities and by responding to her requests for accommodation with hostile actions that caused her constructive discharge. The court agreed with the district court that the University lacked the capacity to be sued under state law and Rule 17(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment without reaching the merits of plaintiff's ADA claims. View "Lundquist v. University of SD Sanford" on Justia Law

by
In this interlocutory appeal, defendants appealed from the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, which halted a mandatory drug-testing policy implemented by Linn State. In evaluating the probability of plaintiffs' success on the merits, the court concluded that the district court erred in ignoring the substantial obstacles this facial challenge presented for plaintiffs and therefore abused its discretion in issuing such a broad injunction. Because plaintiffs have failed to show a fair chance of prevailing on their facial challenge, the court vacated the preliminary injunction. View "Barrett, IV, et al v. Claycomb, et al" on Justia Law

by
Because Creighton University failed to provide what plaintiff, who had a serious hearing impairment, considered necessary and reasonable accommodations, he brought this action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12182, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794. The court concluded that the district court erred by disregarding plaintiff's affidavit, the "independent documentary evidence" offered in its support, and all respects of the record before it; the evidence produced in this case created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Creighton University denied plaintiff an equal opportunity to gain the same benefit from medical school as his non disabled peers by refusing to provide his requested accommodations; and therefore, the district court's grant of summary judgment to Creighton University should be reversed and the case remanded. The court need not consider Creighton University's argument on cross appeal that the district court erred by denying its request for costs without providing a rationale for doing so. View " Argenyi v. Creighton University" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiffs alleged that their autistic son was not provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by the school district as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The court affirmed the district court's holding that the school district had provided a FAPE for the child and allowed his parents meaningful participation in the development of his behavior and educational plans. View "M.M., et al v. Dist 0001 Lancaster Co. School" on Justia Law