Alexander v. Eastern Tank Services, Inc.
2016 Ark. App. 544
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Adam Alexander worked as a dispatcher for Eastern Tank Services from Sept. 2011 and was terminated (laid off) on Aug. 20, 2012 during a company reduction in force.
- Alexander disclosed in August 2012 that he was attending therapy for stress and that his therapist suspected he might have Asperger’s Syndrome; he was officially diagnosed in May 2014.
- Alexander alleged he overheard Eastern’s safety manager say, while on a phone call, “we are not going to have someone with that condition working in this office,” and claimed he was laid off because he was regarded as disabled.
- Eastern produced affidavits and records showing a substantial decline in loads and workforce (from 153 employees in July 2012 to 109 by Oct. 2012), layoffs beginning Aug. 8, 2012, seniority-based reductions, and that Alexander had low seniority and lacked a commercial driver’s license.
- The trial court initially granted summary judgment; this court remanded for McDonnell Douglas analysis. On remand the trial court held Alexander failed to make a prima facie ADA/ACRA case and, alternatively, that Eastern articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason. This appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alexander established a prima facie disability-discrimination claim under the ADA/ACRA | Alexander argued disclosure/therapy and the alleged overheard comment show he was regarded as disabled and that his layoff was motivated by that perception | Eastern argued layoffs were due to legitimate business reasons (reduced loads) decided before disclosure; Alexander had low seniority and was never replaced | Court held Alexander failed to establish a prima facie case; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Eastern’s proffered nondiscriminatory reason was pretext for discrimination | Alexander contended timing and the “vibe” change plus the overheard remark raise factual disputes as to causation and pretext | Eastern produced contemporaneous affidavits, personnel and workload evidence showing reductions in force and decision timing; the alleged remark was not shown to refer to Alexander | Court held evidence of reduction-in-force and timing unrebutted; the isolated, unconnected remark did not establish causation or pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- Greenlee v. J.B. Hunt Transp. Servs., 342 S.W.3d 274 (Ark. 2009) (summary-judgment standard and discrimination proof requirements)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (no discrimination exception to summary-judgment scrutiny)
- Norman v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 606 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2010) (failure to show prima facie case defeats discrimination claim)
- Nyrop v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 11, 616 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2010) (employer awareness of disability alone insufficient to prove discrimination)