Ronald Lloyd v. City of St. Charles, et al, No. 09-1559 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case. Plaintiff failed to show that he suffered adverse employment actions after he supported the mayor's opponent or that there was a causal connection between his speech and the actions.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-1559 ___________ Ronald Lee Lloyd, Appellant, v. City of St. Charles; Patty York, St. Charles City Mayor; Dennis Corley, St. Charles City Chief of Police, Appellees, Lynn Sgouros, St. Charles City Human Resource Director, Defendant. * * * * * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * * * * ___________ Submitted: January 11, 2010 Filed: January 19, 2010 ___________ Before MURPHY and BYE, Circuit Judges, and STROM,1 District Judge. ___________ PER CURIAM. 1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. Ronald Lloyd appeals the district court's2 adverse grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of St. Charles (his employer) and the City's mayor and police chief in this action in which Lloyd alleges he was retaliated against for exercising his First Amendment rights in support of the mayor's opponent during the 2007 mayoral election. Following careful de novo review of the record, see Kincaid v. City of Omaha, 378 F.3d 799, 803-04 (8th Cir. 2004) (setting forth the standard of review), we agree with the district court that the two actions the employer took against Lloyd (a shift transfer and an internal investigation into his use of work hours for coaching high school football while on duty) did not constitute adverse employment actions because the shift transfer did not result in a "significant change in working conditions," Shockency v. Ramsey County, 493 F.3d 941, 948 (8th Cir. 2007), and the internal investigation did not result in any discipline, see Altonen v. City of Minneapolis, 487 F.3d 554, 560 (8th Cir. 2007) ("Internal investigations are not adverse employment actions when they do not result in any change in [the] form or condition to the employee's employment."). We also agree with the district court that Lloyd failed to establish a causal connection between the exercise of his First Amendment rights and the two allegedly adverse employment actions. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.3 ______________________________ 2 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 3 We deny as moot the appellees' motion to strike portions of Lloyd's Reply Brief and Supplemental Appendix. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
