Sharmarke Abdi v. Hennepin County ( 2024 )


Menu:
  •               United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 24-1393
    ___________________________
    Sharmarke Y. Abdi
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    Hennepin County
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
    ------------------------------
    United States
    lllllllllllllllllllllAmicus on Behalf of Appellant(s)
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota
    ____________
    Submitted: October 18, 2024
    Filed: October 30, 2024
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Sharmarke Abdi appeals the district court’s order dismissing his employment-
    related action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as to some claims and
    failure to plead an adverse employment action as to the remaining claims.
    Upon de novo review, we conclude the district court did not err in dismissing
    the claims it correctly determined were unexhausted. See J.M. v. Francis Howell Sch.
    Dist., 
    850 F.3d 944
    , 947 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review); Bailey v. USPS, 
    208 F.3d 652
    , 654 (8th Cir. 2000) (requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before
    employee may bring Title VII claims); Weatherly v. Ford Motor Co., 
    994 F.3d 940
    ,
    944-46 (8th Cir. 2021) (requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before
    employee may bring ADA claims). As to the dismissal of the remaining claims, see
    Cook v. George’s, Inc., 
    952 F.3d 935
    , 938 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review), we
    conclude further consideration of the issues is necessary, including as to whether
    Abdi pleaded facts suggesting he suffered an adverse employment action under the
    standards discussed in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 
    601 U.S. 346
     (2024), and
    Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 
    548 U.S. 53
     (2006).
    Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the unexhausted claims, and otherwise
    vacate the dismissal order and remand the case to the district court. We also grant
    Hennepin County’s motion to strike.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 24-1393

Filed Date: 10/30/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2024