Mary Markell v. Les Pikula and Terry Nash

Eighth Circuit

Mary Markell v. Les Pikula and Terry Nash

841 F.2d 254, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3198, 1988 WL 20878

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 15, 1988

Docket87-5337

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 841 F.2d 254 (Mary Markell v. Les Pikula and Terry Nash) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mary Markell v. Les Pikula and Terry Nash, 841 F.2d 254, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3198, 1988 WL 20878 (8th Cir. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mary Markell appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment against her on her state law tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Markell, a United States Postal Service clerk, claimed her immediate supervisors, Les Pikula and Terry Nash, engaged in a pattern of conduct that resulted in her extreme emotional distress.

Relying on Poolman v. Nelson, 802 F.2d 304 (8th Cir.1986), the district court held Pikula and Nash were entitled to absolute immunity because the conduct complained of was “within the outer perimeter of [their] line of duty.” See id. at 308 (footnote omitted). While this appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court resolved a conflict among the circuit courts *255 of appeals on the issue of whether federal officials are absolutely immune from state law tort liability “for conduct within the scope of their employment without regard to whether the challenged conduct was discretionary in nature.” Westfall v. Erwin, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 580, 582, 98 L.Ed. 2d 619 (1988). The Court held absolute immunity is available only when the official’s conduct “is within the scope of * * * official duties and the conduct is discretionary in nature.” Id., 108 S.Ct. at 584 (footnote omitted) (emphasis in original).

Because the district court had no-reason under Poolman to consider whether the supervisors’ conduct was discretionary, see Poolman, 802 F.2d at 308, we are compelled to remand this case to the district court for reconsideration in light of West-fall. Accordingly, we set aside the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Mary Markell appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment against her on her state law tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Markell, a United States Postal Service clerk, claimed her immediate supervisors, Les Pikula and Terry Nash, engaged in a pattern of conduct that resulted in her extreme emotional distress.

Relying on Poolman v. Nelson, 802 F.2d 304 (8th Cir.1986), the district court held Pikula and Nash were entitled to absolute immunity because the conduct complained of was “within the outer perimeter of [their] line of duty.” See id. at 308 (footnote omitted). While this appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court resolved a conflict among the circuit courts *255 of appeals on the issue of whether federal officials are absolutely immune from state law tort liability “for conduct within the scope of their employment without regard to whether the challenged conduct was discretionary in nature.” Westfall v. Erwin, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 580, 582, 98 L.Ed. 2d 619 (1988). The Court held absolute immunity is available only when the official’s conduct “is within the scope of * * * official duties and the conduct is discretionary in nature.” Id., 108 S.Ct. at 584 (footnote omitted) (emphasis in original).

Because the district court had no-reason under Poolman to consider whether the supervisors’ conduct was discretionary, see Poolman, 802 F.2d at 308, we are compelled to remand this case to the district court for reconsideration in light of West-fall. Accordingly, we set aside the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

841 F.2d 254, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3198, 1988 WL 20878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mary-markell-v-les-pikula-and-terry-nash-ca8-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack