United States Eighth Circuit

In an employment sex discrimination case, district court rulings against plaintiffs are affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiffs' amended complaint was untimely under the equitable tolling doctrine as plaintiffs did not act with due diligence, or under the relation back doctrine as plaintiffs' failure to name the company's subsidiary was not the result of a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party; 2) district court's grant of summary judgment against timely plaintiffs on their sex discrimination, quid pro quo sexual harassment, retaliation, and a hostile workplace claim was proper. A ruling finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants-parent and subsidiary acted as an integrated enterprise is reversed and remanded given their interrelated operations. Dismissal of two plaintiffs' hostile workplace claims is remanded to determine whether evidence of widespread sexual harassment was sufficient to put the subsidiary on notice.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/26/2009
• Published 08/26/2009

Judges

• BYE, Circuit Judge., Before BYE, JOHN R. GIBSON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Justin D. Cummins, argued, Brendan D. Cummins, Kelly A. Jeanetta, M. William O'Brien, Miller & O'Brien, on the brief, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiffs-Appellants., Dori Kay Bernstein, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, Stefano G. Moscato, National Employment Lawyers Association, San Francisco, CA, Joyce E. Smithey, Rifkin & Livingston, Annapolis, MD, Amici on behalf of Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Robert R. Reinhart, Jr., argued, Joel O'Malley, Dorsey & Whitney, on the brief, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendants-Appellees.