From labor disputes cases to labor and employment publications, for your research, you’ll find solutions on Bloomberg Law®. Protect your clients by developing strategies based on Litigation...
Nov. 28 — A school custodian in Minnesota who is allergic to bee stings and alleged that he was reassigned to potentially life threatening outdoor work because of his wife's statements during a school board meeting lacks First Amendment retaliation and marital status bias claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled Nov. 28.
Affirming summary judgment to Independent School District No. 743 and two officials, the Eighth Circuit found that Timothy Skalsky failed to show that his wife's budgetary suggestion, which including having the board share a superintendent and eliminate a principal, was a substantial or motivating factor in the district's decision to reassign him, as required under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983).
“Skalsky attempts to show pretext by pointing to the fact his job duties were changed shortly after his wife spoke at the school board meeting,” the Eighth Circuit wrote. “[T]emporal proximity alone is not sufficient.”
The appeals court also held that Skalsky didn't establish marital status discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act because he couldn't demonstrate pretext in the stated reasons for his reassignment, namely that certain duties needed to be redistributed after the district eliminated a part-time outdoor custodial position.
Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of Skalsky's state law tortious interference with a contract claim, finding no evidence that the decision makers knew about Skalsky's bee allergy and acted with malice by reassigning him to outdoor work.
Judge William J. Riley wrote the opinion, joined by Judges Roger L. Wollman and Kermit E. Bye.
To prevail on his First Amendment retaliation claim, which he based on his right to freely associate with his wife, Skalsky must show that his wife's speech was a substantial or motivating factor in his reassignment, the Eighth Circuit said.
Skalsky argued that superintendent Dan Brooks was upset with him after his wife's comments and that the reassignment occurred six days after the school board meeting.
However, temporal proximity alone can't establish a retaliatory motive, the court said, and Skalsky offered no additional evidence connecting Brooks's purported animosity to the reassignment.
The record shows the school district was having financial problems and made budget cuts that included eliminating the part-time custodian responsible for outdoor tasks, the court said. The district reallocated those duties to remaining qualified employees, including Skalsky, it said.
Turning to Skalsky's MHRA marital status discrimination claim, the appeals court found he failed to rebut as pretextual the school district's proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his assignment.
“Skalsky attempts to show pretext by pointing to the fact his job duties were changed shortly after his wife spoke at the school board meeting,” it said. “Again, temporal proximity alone is not sufficient.”
Skalsky also questioned an official's contention that he was the best qualified custodian for outdoor work, but the court said “simply questioning” a decision maker's opinion can't establish pretext.
Finally, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Skalsky's tortious interference with a contract claim because he couldn't prove that officials acted with malice when they reassigned him.
Skalsky contended that officials knew about his bee sting allergy and that “only those motivated by malice” would have assigned him duties that potentially could threaten his life, the court said.
But it observed that Skalsky had no work restrictions and never asked a medical provider to excuse him from performing outdoor work.
“Because the record does not contain evidence showing [officials] knew about the allergy or its severity at the time of reassignment, Skalsky failed to produce sufficient evidence to indicate [they] acted with malice,” the court said.
Warner Law Office represented Skalsky. Hanson Bolkom Law Group and Arthur & Chapman represented the school district and officials.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jay-Anne B. Casuga in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Susan J. McGolrick at firstname.lastname@example.org
Text of the opinion is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Timothy_Skalsky_v_Independent_School_District_et_al_Docket_No_130.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)