A Supervisor’s “Reprehensible and Improper” Behavior Not Enough to Prove Hostile Work Environment Claim in Eighth Circuit

The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals’ high bar for Title VII hostile work environment claims remains after the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the case on December 7, 2020. The Eighth Circuit previously held in Paskert v. Kemna-ASA Auto Plaza, Inc, that a supervisor’s boorish behavior, “while certainly reprehensible and improper,” was not so severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment necessary to sustain a Title VII hostile work environment claim.

Aaron ChaetCampbell Litigation, P.C.December 10, 2020Hostile Work Environment, Title VII, Eighth Circuit, Supreme CourtComment

Eighth Circuit Finds Independent Contractor Noncompete Agreement to be Unenforceable

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that an Iowa company in the business of selling fertilizer, nutrients, and crop-management services could not enforce a noncompetition agreement against a former independent contractor, a sales representative. In AG Spectrum Co. v. Elder, the noncompetition provision prohibited the sales representative from competing with the company for three years if either party ended the contractual relationship. The court found that the company did not show that the noncompetition provision in its independent contractor agreement was reasonable – the governing test under Iowa contract law. In Iowa, the ultimate goal of enforcing noncompetition agreements is to prevent unjust enrichment.

Campbell Litigation, P.C.August 10, 2017Colorado, noncompete, Eighth CircuitComment

Federal Appeals Court Rejects Employee’s Claim of Sex Discrimination Based on Her Son’s Gender Dysphoria

This week, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employee could not bring a sex discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) based on alleged harm to her son. In Tovear v. Essentia Health, the plaintiff employee and her son, who was diagnosed with gender dysphoriawere was enrolled in her employer’s health insurance plan. The employer’s insurance plan categorically excluded coverage for gender reassignment services and surgeries, and accordingly denied the plaintiff’s requests that her son get coverage for medications and gender reassignment surgery. The plaintiff claimed that her employer engaged in unlawful sex discrimination by refusing to cover the requested treatment.

The Rocky Mountain Employer