Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01559/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01559-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1559

___________

Ronald Lee Lloyd, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

City of St. Charles; Patty York, *

St. Charles City Mayor; Dennis * Appeal from the United States

Corley, St. Charles City Chief * District Court for the

of Police, * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Appellees, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Lynn Sgouros, St. Charles City *

Human Resource Director, *

*

Defendant. *

___________

Submitted: January 11, 2010

Filed: January 19, 2010

___________

Before MURPHY and BYE, Circuit Judges, and STROM,1

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 09-1559 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2010 Entry ID: 3625276
2

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

3

We deny as moot the appellees' motion to strike portions of Lloyd's Reply

Brief and Supplemental Appendix.

-2-

Ronald Lloyd appeals the district court's2

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in favor of the City of St. Charles (his employer) and the City's mayor and police chief

in this action in which Lloyd alleges he was retaliated against for exercising his First

Amendment rights in support of the mayor's opponent during the 2007 mayoral

election.

Following careful de novo review of the record, see Kincaid v. City of Omaha,

378 F.3d 799, 803-04 (8th Cir. 2004) (setting forth the standard of review), we agree

with the district court that the two actions the employer took against Lloyd (a shift

transfer and an internal investigation into his use of work hours for coaching high

school football while on duty) did not constitute adverse employment actions because

the shift transfer did not result in a "significant change in working conditions,"

Shockency v. Ramsey County, 493 F.3d 941, 948 (8th Cir. 2007), and the internal

investigation did not result in any discipline, see Altonen v. City of Minneapolis, 487

F.3d 554, 560 (8th Cir. 2007) ("Internal investigations are not adverse employment

actions when they do not result in any change in [the] form or condition to the

employee's employment."). We also agree with the district court that Lloyd failed to

establish a causal connection between the exercise of his First Amendment rights and

the two allegedly adverse employment actions.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough and

well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.3

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1559 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2010 Entry ID: 3625276