Nicolas Tashman v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., No. 22-1949 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff sued Advance Auto Parts, claiming unlawful discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted Advance Auto’s motion for summary judgment.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that here, unlike Green v. Dillard’s Inc., there is no genuine dispute whether Advance Auto acted negligently or recklessly under Section 213. As for Section 213(a), Plaintiff does not allege that Advance Auto made improper orders or regulations. It had a written policy prohibiting discrimination based on any protected status; all employees had to read and familiarize themselves with this policy and complete annual training. The court further explained that Advance Auto is not liable under Section 1981 for discrimination based on its employee’s conduct. Plaintiff’s claims for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress fail under respondeat superior and ratification.
Court Description: [Benton, Author, with Gruender and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The district court did not err in granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that defendant's employee's discriminatory conduct amounted to negligent or reckless actions by defendant under Section 213 of the Restatement (Second) of Agency; nor can plaintiff show that defendant improperly hired or retained someone they knew harbored racially hostile propensities; nor did plaintiff show that defendant failed to supervise or prevent the employee's conduct; without showing causation, plaintiff cannot establish that defendant was liable for the employee's conduct under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981; turning to plaintiff's claim for assault and negligent infliction of emotional distress under Missouri law, the claims were based on intentional torts, and the acts were not within the scope of plaintiff's employment; as a result, defendant was not liable for the acts under a theory of respondeat superior; defendant did not ratify the employee's acts.
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.