Auer v. City of Minot, No. 17-1535 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the city in an action brought by plaintiff, the former city attorney for Minot, North Dakota. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion seeking to sanction the city for its alleged malfeasance in losing evidence. The court held that plaintiff's sex-based harassment claim failed because the only articulated basis for concluding that she was experiencing sex-based harassment was that the city manager unfavorably compared her work style to the previous city attorney; plaintiff's sex-based retaliation claim failed because she never made a report of sex stereotyping, so such a report could not have been the reason the city fired her; plaintiff did not suffer reputational harm from the allegedly false statements about her job performance and termination in the affidavits accompanying the city's summary judgment motion; and plaintiff cited no authority for the novel proposition that a defendant in a civil action can violate due process simply by submitting evidence in court. Finally, the court held that plaintiff's challenge to the district court's denial of her motion for additional time to respond was not properly before the court; plaintiff forfeited any right to challenge the award of litigation costs; and plaintiff's unopposed motion to seal certain portions of the record was granted.
Court Description: Stras, Author, with Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. For a related appeal, see Auer v. Trans Union, LLC, 834 F.3d 933 (8th Cir. 2016). In this action, plaintiff, a probationary city attorney, alleged the City fired her for reporting harassment and discrimination and retaliated against her for speaking out at a city council meeting and unfairly damaged her professional reputation. Plaintiff was not entitled to a presumption that lost evidence proved her allegations as the record would show, at most, negligent handling of electronic records and not the kind of intentional, bad-faith misconduct required to grant an adverse presumption; plaintiff's only articulated basis for concluding she was experiencing sex-based harassment was that the City Manager compared her work style to the former city attorney, a male, and this evidence was insufficient to establish under North Dakota law that plaintiff reasonably believed the complained-of conduct was illegal; plaintiff never reported sex stereotyping and such a report could not have been the basis for her termination; claim that plaintiff suffered reputational harm from allegedly false statements about her job performance and termination in the affidavits accompanying the City's summary judgment motion fails as a matter of law as the affidavits were created well after the time of the supposed injury to her reputation and imposition of liability upon the filing would force the City to either withhold evidence or face potential liability for using it; plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to support a finding that her speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the City Council's decision to ratify her termination.
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.