By Colin Smith

The opinion in Iowa Right to Life v. Tooker—a case we predicted would be a blockbuster—was handed down by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals this morning.  While I have only had the opportunity to skim the lengthy opinion at this point, the following appears to be the result of the case:

Upheld:

• Iowa’s disclosure requirement that a one-time, event-driven report be publicly filed when a corporate entity makes a political independent expenditure
• Iowa’s disclosure requirement that any one-time, event-driven report be filed within 48 hours of making the expenditure.
• Iowa’s ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates.

Remanded:

• IRTL’s First Amendment (speech) challenge to Iowa’s requirement that a corporation’s board of directors approve, beforehand, the making of any political independent expenditure.
• IRTL’s Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection) challenge to Iowa’s requirement that a corporation’s board of directors approve, beforehand, the making of any  political independent expenditure

Struck Down:

• Iowa’s requirement that periodic, ongoing and supplemental reports be filed by corporate entities that make independent expenditures.  (These reports were required in addition to the one-time, event-driven reports mentioned above.  These ongoing reports were mandatory even if the entity was not speaking).
• Iowa’s requirement that a termination statement be filed when a corporate entity wishes to cease making further political independent expenditures.

Issue Left Open:

• The court seemingly left open the question about whether or not all entities who want to make independent expenditures need to “register” with the state in order to do so.  The court did not venture to explain its reasoning, but instead briefly stated in a footnote that it was “not hold[ing] that any form of initial reporting [registration] requirement is constitutional. . . .” (emphasis in original).

Notable Quote:

• In striking down part of Iowa’s campaign finance law, the court called Iowa’s reporting requirements “additional, redundant, and more burdensome” than the requirements in previous cases.

The outcome of this case is going to have a large impact on Iowa’s upcoming 2014 election cycle.  It also has the potential to create big waves in the State legislature if  lawmakers attempt to draft new legislation to comply with the ruling.  Stay tuned for more detailed analysis of this important case.

By Tom Cunningham

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit presented employers with a New Year’s victory on Monday when it issued its decision in Owen v. Bristol Care, Inc., 2013 WL 57874 (8th Cir. Jan. 7, 2013). The Court held that an arbitration agreement that contained a class action waiver provision prohibiting the employee from arbitrating claims on behalf of a class was valid and enforceable. 

Sharon Owen was employed as an administrator at an elderly residential care facility operated by her employer, Bristol Care, Inc., in Cameron, Missouri.  When Owen was hired, she signed an agreement in which the parties agreed to resolve all disputes that might arise between them by binding arbitration.  The agreement expressly included within its scope any claim for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and state wage and hour laws.  The agreement also contained a waiver that prohibited the parties “from arbitrating claims subject to the agreement as, or on behalf of, a class.”  Finally, the agreement clearly stated the employee did not waive the right to file a complaint with the EEOC or any other federal, state or local agency designated to investigate complaints of harassment, discrimination, and other statutory violations.

A few years later, Owen initiated a lawsuit against Bristol Care alleging on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees that Bristol Care had misclassified facility administrators like herself as exempt employees for purposes of the overtime provisions of the FLSA and state law.  She sought overtime compensation for herself and the putative class members.  Bristol Care moved to stay the federal court case and compel arbitration in accordance with her agreement and the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).  The district court denied Bristol Care’s motion to compel, holding that the agreement was invalid because it contained a class action waiver.  The district court distinguished the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011), which upheld the enforceability of a class action waiver in a consumer contract, on the grounds that Concepcion was not controlling in the employment context.  Instead, the court relied in part on the decision of the National Labor Relations Board in D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184 (2012), appeal pending, No. 12-60031 (5th Cir. filed Jan. 13, 2012).  The district court concluded that class action waivers are invalid in FLSA cases because the FLSA expressly provides the right to bring a class action.  We discussed the D.R. Horton case last year in this blog post.

[The following summary was written by Nyemaster Goode attorney Colin Smith]

Recently the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in its en banc rehearing of Phelps-Roper v. City of Manchester, held that a Missouri town’s funeral protest ordinance was constitutional as a narrowly tailored restriction on free speech that served the significant state interest of preserving the solemnity of ongoing funeral services.  This case is the latest in a string of funeral protest cases that have come out of the Eighth Circuit, some of which have been previously discussed on this blog.

[The following summary was written by Nyemaster Goode attorney Colin Smith]

In one of the latest cases to come down in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently dismissed another challenge to the healthcare law.  Authored by Iowan and rumored Supreme Court short-lister Judge Steven Colloton, the Court denied two plaintiffs’ challenges to the universal coverage provision in the ACA on the grounds that neither party had standing to bring the case.