At page 744 Determining eligibility for jury trial in administrative actions14 citing casesplaintiff made threats to hurt or kill his supervisor
- Conn v. Am. Nat'l Red Cross, 168 F. Supp. 3d 90 (D.D.C. 2016).publishedA separate provision of another law— the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794— applies in part to the federal government and prohibits discrimination in employment against a person “solely by reason of her or his disability.” Plaintiffs may…
- Calef v. The Gillette Co., 322 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2003).published (plaintiff made threats to hurt or kill his supervisor)
- Biermann v. United States, 67 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (E.D. Mo. 1999).published(noting the Postal Service is part of the Government of the United States, 39 U.S.C. § 201 , and when the head of the Postal Service acts in his official capacity, he acts in the name of the Postal Service)
- Valentine v. Stand. & Poor's, 50 F. Supp. 2d 262 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).publishedCo., 136 F.3d 1047, 1052 (5th Cir.1998) (affirming summary judgment for employer where plaintiff was terminated for violation of policy on workplace violence); Palmer v. Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, 117 F.3d 351, 352 (7th Cir.19…
- Spencer v. Labarge (In Re Spencer), 301 B.R. 730 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2003).published See Crawford v. Runyon, 79 F.3d 743, 744 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 988 F.2d 61, 63 (8th Cir. 1993)). 3 DISCUSSION Most of Spencer’s argument on appeal addresses the propriety of the first dismi…
- Robert McGrew v. Ronald Hasty, 2 F. App'x 616 (8th Cir. 2001).unpublishedSee Crawford v. Runyon, 79 F.3d 743, 744 (8th Cir.1996); Ryder v. Morris, 752 F.2d 327, 332 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1126 , 105 S.Ct. 2660 , 86 L.Ed.2d 276 (1985).
- Miller v. Runyon, 88 F. Supp. 2d 461 (M.D.N.C. 2000).publishedSee Crawford v. Runyon, 79 F.3d 743, 744 (8th Cir.1996) (affirming district court’s decision that plaintiff did not have a right to a jury trial in his suit under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against the Postmaster General acting in his…
- Comfort Lake Ass'n, Inc., Plaintiff--Appellant/cross v. Dresel Contracting, Inc. Fain Companies, Defendants--Appellees/cross, 138 F.3d 351 (8th Cir. 1998).publishedSee Crawford v. Runyon, 79 F.3d 743, 744 (8th Cir.1996). 4 .
- Comfort Lake Assoc. v. Dresel Contracting, No. 96-3654 (8th Cir. Mar. 5, 1998).publishedSee Crawford v. Runyon, 79 F.3d 743, 744 (8th Cir. 1996). -6- terminate until “the site has undergone final stabilization,” MPCA obviously concluded in April 1996 that such stabilization had been achieved.
- Eginton v. Runyon, 129 F.3d 130 (10th Cir. 1997).published See Crawford v. Runyon, 79 F.3d 743, 744 (8th Cir. 1996); Young v. United States Postal Serv.
Show 1 more citing case
- Davis v. Francis Howell Sch. Dist., 104 F.3d 204 (8th Cir. 1997).published (appellate court generally cannot consider evidence not in record below)
Other citing cases
- Robert S. Merheb v. Illinois State Toll High. Auth., 267 F.3d 710 (7th Cir. 2001).published
v.
Marvin T. RUNYON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Appellee
Eric Crawford appeals the District Court’s [1] entry of judgment for defendant following a bench trial in this action arising from his discharge from the United States Postal Service. We affirm.
Crawford, a former Postal Service employee, alleged that the Postal Service discriminated against him in violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Crawford claimed he was fired after his supervisors lied about alleged threats he had made to hurt or kill his acting immediate supervisor, as part of a campaign to have him terminated because of his depression and stress-related mental disorders. After the District Court granted summary judgment to defendant, we reversed on this claim, and remanded for a trial. Crawford v. Runyon, 37 F.3d 1338, 1339, 1341 (8th Cir.1994).
Before trial, the District Court struck Crawford’s demand for a jury, concluding that Crawford had no right to a jury trial. At the start of the bench trial, the parties agreed that the only issue before the court was whether Crawford made the threats; if he did, Crawford agreed defendant’s reasons for firing him would not be pretextual. At the conclusion of the trial, the District Court found that Crawford had threatened his supervisors, and that defendant’s reason for discharging Crawford was not pretextual.
We agree with the District Court that Crawford did not have a right to a jury trial, because defendant was sued in his official capacity as a representative of the United States. See 39 U.S.C. § 201 (Postal Service is part of “Government of the United States”); Loeffler v. Frank, 486 U.S. 549, 562 n. 8, 108 S.Ct. 1965, 1973 n. 8, 100 L.Ed.2d 549 (1988) (when head of Postal Service acts in official capacity, he acts in name of Postal Service); Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160-61, 168, 101 S.Ct. 2698, 2701-02, 69 L.Ed.2d 548 (1981) (Seventh Amendment right to jury trial does not apply against federal government, and plaintiff has right to jury trial “only where Congress has affirmatively and unambiguously granted that right by statute”).
Given the parties’ stipulation regarding pretext, only the District Court’s factual findings on whether Crawford actually threatened his supervisors need be reviewed. The Court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. Each of three supervisors testified that he or she heard Crawford make a threatening statement directed towards his acting supervisor on the relevant dates. Furthermore, Crawford’s own testimony shows that on each of these dates he made statements which were either directly threatening to his acting supervisor, or could reasonably be perceived as threatening to his acting supervisor or other supervisors.
Finally, we deny Crawford’s motion to supplement the record. The material he offers is presented for impeachment only, which should have been done at trial. See Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 988 F.2d 61, 63 (8th Cir.1993) (appellate court generally cannot consider evidence not in record below). Defendant’s motions to strike and to supplement the record are denied.
Affirmed.
. The Honorable George F. Gunn, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.