Quiles v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Inc., No. 19-3489 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's orders involving plaintiff and Union Pacific's motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and plaintiff's motion for attorney fees in this suit under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that the lack of damages or equitable relief at the district court level did not strip this court of subject matter jurisdiction. On the merits, the court concluded that the district court improperly granted plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law where a reasonable jury could find Union Pacific attempted to fit plaintiff into an appropriate job within the corporation's reorganized structure upon his return from deployment, thereby leading to the conclusion Union Pacific reemployed him in accordance with the escalator position principle. The court reversed the district court's JMOL decision on the reemployment claim.
In addressing the denial of its own JMOL motion, Union Pacific raised affirmative defenses for the first time on appeal. The court will not consider Union Pacific's new arguments on appeal. Nonetheless, on the record before the court and on de novo review, the court concluded that the district court should have granted Union Pacific's motion for JMOL because no reasonable jury could find in favor of plaintiff on his reemployment claim. In this case, the record does not support the conclusion that Union Pacific failed to place plaintiff in the position that he would have otherwise been in had he not been deployed. Finally, because plaintiff was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on his reemployment claim, he does not qualify as a prevailing party for the purpose of recovering attorney fees.
Court Description: [Grasz, Author, with Benton and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. Plaintiff's lack of success on the merits of his claims under the Act does not impact standing or this courts subject matter jurisdiction over his appeal; the district court erred in granting plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on his failure to reemploy claim as a reasonable jury could find that UP attempted to fit plaintiff into an appropriate job within the company's reorganized structure upon his return from deployment, leading to the conclusion that UP reemployed plaintiff in accordance with the Act's "escalator position principle;" in addressing the denial of its own judgment as a matter of law motion, UP raises affirmative defenses for the first time on appeal, and these new arguments would not be considered; nevertheless, on the record before the court and under de novo review, the court concludes the district court should have granted UP's JMOL motion because no reasonable jury could have found in favor in plaintiff's favor on the reemployment claim; because plaintiff was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on his reemployment claim, he is not a prevailing party, and the district court's attorneys' fees award is vacated.
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.