The group has a long and noteworthy track record – dating back to McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) – of obtaining positive rulings for employers in both federal and state appellate courts.  Our appellate victories cover claims brought under a number of state and federal statutes, including Title VII (and state equivalents), the ADA, the ADEA, the WARN Act, and ERISA; and span a variety of issues, including whistleblower allegations and employee handbook claims, relating to the employment-at-will doctrine.  We have also handled appeals in cases that do not, strictly speaking, involve employer-employee disputes, but which arise from the same statutes (e.g., 42 U.S.C. §1981) or similar relationships (e.g., principal-agent or contractor), or in which an employer faces liability based on respondeat superior.  Some of our cases have led to landmark appellate decisions, establishing standards favorable to employers and facilitating summary judgment in subsequent cases.

To preserve all potential points of error for a prospective appeal, our lawyers work closely with the Firm’s appellate professionals at all critical stages of a lawsuit -- including affirmative defenses, motions in limine, jury instructions, directed verdict motions, and post-judgment proceedings.  Our appellate professionals’ experience is particularly valuable in collective and class actions, where interlocutory appeals or extraordinary writ proceedings may arise from certification decisions or class-wide discovery orders.  The collaboration between our appellate and employment lawyers provides our clients with exceptional representation from start to finish and ensures the best possible outcome on appeal.

Representative Appellate Cases

Employment Discrimination

• McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) — Establishing alternative, burden-shifting method of proof by which an inference of intentional discrimination may be raised; method continues in use in Title VII cases more than 35 years later.
• Gregory v. Dillard’s, Inc., 566 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) — Affirming district court’s dismissal of claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §1981 by African-American shoppers against defendant retailer; Court held that allegations of race-based surveillance by a retailer are insufficient to establish interference with a protected activity under §1981, and that none of the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that his or her right to enter into a contract to purchase goods was interfered with or thwarted.
• Long v. Howard University, 550 F.3d 21 (D.C. Cir. 2008) — Affirming jury verdict in favor of university, based on statute-of-limitations defense, on student’s claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
• Duncan v. General Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2002) — Reversing outright a $1 million judgment against automobile manufacturer on sexual harassment and constructive discharge claims.
• Stuart v. General Motors Corp., 217 F.3d 621 (8th Cir. 2000) — Affirming summary judgment in favor of automobile manufacturer on claims of sexual harassment.
• Buettner v. Arch Coal Sales Co., Inc., 216 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2000) — Affirming summary judgment in favor of coal company and its sales subsidiary on claims brought by employee, laid off in reduction-in-force, alleging retaliatory discharge for complaints of sex discrimination, and violation of Equal Pay Act.
• EEOC v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 191 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 1999) — Affirming dismissal of and summary judgment on claims brought by EEOC alleging that defense contractor’s reduction-in-force had disparate impact and constituted disparate treatment in violation of Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
• EEOC v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 1998) — Reducing judgment on jury verdicts for punitive damages in favor of plaintiffs alleging race discrimination against hotel from a total of $4,800,000 to $480,000, and reducing trial court’s front pay award from equivalent of five years’ salary to one year’s salary.
• Schultz v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 105 F.3d 1258 (8th Cir. 1997) — Affirming judgment on jury verdict in favor of defense contractor on former employee’s claim that he was terminated in violation of ADEA.
• Stevens v. St. Louis University Medical Center, 97 F.3d 268 (8th Cir. 1996) — Affirming summary judgment in favor of university medical center on plaintiff’s claims of gender discrimination and retaliatory discharge.
• Hutson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 63 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 1995) — Affirming summary judgment for defense contractor on employee’s claims of discrimination under ADEA.
• Dring v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 58 F.3d 1323 (8th Cir. 1995) — Affirming summary judgment for defense contractor of employee’s claims under ADEA, based on untimely filing of administrative charge.

ERISA

 

• Barnett v. Ameren Corporation, 436 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2007) — Affirming summary judgment in favor of utility company in putative class action alleging wrongful modification of retiree healthcare benefits.
• Angell v. John Hancock Life Insurance Co., 2007 WL 866239 (8th Cir. 2007) — Affirming dismissal of ERISA claims against insurance company based on statute of limitations.
• Millsap v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 368 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2004) — Holding that back pay was not a potential remedy for class of benefit plan participants alleging violations of ERISA against defense contractor.

Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act

 

• Loehrer v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 98 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir. 1996) — Affirming judgment, after bench trial, in favor of defense contractor on laid-off employees’ claims under WARN Act.
• UFCW Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544 (1996) — Represented shoe manufacturer sued by union for alleged violations of WARN Act; Supreme Court held that union had standing to bring WARN action on behalf of its members.

Labor Statutes

 

• Guttierez v. United Foods, Inc., 11 F.3d 556 (5th Cir. 1994) — Affirming dismissal, for lack of standing, of employees’ claims under LMRA for alleged breach of successors-and-assigns clause in collective bargaining agreement.
• Brazinski v. Amoco Petroleum Additives Co., 6 F.3d 1176 (7th Cir. 1993) — Affirming summary judgment in favor of employer on claims brought by female workers alleging that video surveillance in locker room violated their tort right of privacy; Court held that claims were governed by Labor Management Relations Act, not state law, and that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their remedies under the collective bargaining agreement.  See also predecessor case, In re Amoco Petroleum Additives Co., 964 F.2d 706 (7th Cir. 1992), granting petition for writ of mandamus and reversing remand order because plaintiffs’ tort claims were preempted by Labor Management Relations Act and case was therefore properly removed.
• Calvert v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 959 F.2d 698 (8th Cir. 1992) — Affirming dismissal of state law tort claims against airline brought by member of pilot’s union; claims were preempted by Railway Labor Act.

State Law Claims

 

• Stehno v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 186 S.W.3d 247 (Mo. banc 2006) — Reversing trial court’s grant of new trial and holding that database consultant did not make a submissible case for tortious interference with business expectancy against his employer’s client and sub-client because, as a temporary contractor, he had no reasonable expectancy of continued employment.
• Luethans v. Washington University, 894 S.W.2d 169 (Mo. banc 1995) — Affirming summary judgment for university on former contract employee’s allegations that he was wrongfully discharged in violation of public policy exception to employment-at-will doctrine for making reports of animal misconduct at research facility.
• Boever v. Special School District of St. Louis County, 296 S.W.3d 487 (Mo. App. 2009) — Affirming dismissal, under immunity doctrines, of negligence claims against school district, teacher, and teacher’s aides arising from death of student after choking incident in classroom.
• Kelly v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 218 S.W.3d 517 (Mo. App. 2007) — Reversing judgment totaling more than $19 million in actual and punitive damages on the breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference claims brought by terminated insurance agents.
• Stephenson v. Raskas Dairy, Inc., 26 S.W.3d 209 (Mo. App. 2000) — Reversing judgment of actual and punitive damages totaling $600,000 on jury verdict in favor of employee alleging that she was discharged in retaliation for exercising rights under worker’s compensation statute.
• Bordell v. Union Electric Co., 88 N.Y.S.2d 869, 667 N.E.2d 922 (N.Y. 1996) — Affirming summary judgment for employer on former employee’s claims that he was terminated for reporting to the Department of Energy (“DOE”) that he believed the employer’s employees might have been exposed to radiation levels sufficient to trigger DOE’s mandatory reporting requirements; cause of action predicated on state “whistleblowers’ statute” required proof, not just a reasonable belief, that employer violated a law, rule, or regulation relating to public health or safety.
• Johnson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 745 S.W.2d 661 (Mo. banc 1988) — Affirming summary judgment for employer on former employee’s wrongful discharge claim; Court held that there is no employee handbook exception to employment-at-will doctrine.