Sharmarke Abdi v. Hennepin County

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: October 30, 2024
• Docket: 24-1393
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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Submitted: October 18, 2024 Filed: October 30, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________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-