Aubree Ebersole v. Novo Nordisk, Inc.
758 F.3d 917
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Ebersole alleges Novo Nordisk terminated her in violation of the FMLA; district court granted summary judgment for defendants and this court affirms.
- Ebersole has rheumatoid arthritis and took medical leave January 30 to March 6, 2009; returned with no restrictions.
- Reichard, her former supervisor, was terminated in February 2009; Sitarama became Reichard’s permanent replacement in April 2009.
- During a post-replacement field ride, Sitarama questioned Ebersole about her arthritis and medications, pressuring discussion of her condition.
- Investigation revealed Ebersole falsified three calls to a doctor; Novo policy requires calls to be face-to-face with the physician on the call list, violations can lead to termination.
- Novo policy (Code of Conduct) states dishonesty or falsification of company records can lead to termination; district court granted summary judgment and this court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct discrimination evidence | Sitarama/Connell discussed health, implying discrimination. | Conversations were neutral attempts to understand new subordinates; no discriminatory animus. | No direct evidence of discrimination; conversations not clearly linking to illegal motive. |
| Indirect evidence under McDonnell Douglas (prima facie and pretext) | Temporal proximity and comparator evidence show pretext. | Non-discriminatory reason: policy violation; comparators insufficient; timing too remote. | Prima facie shown but legitimate non-retaliatory reason established; no pretext shown. |
| Pretext demonstration via comparators and policy deviation | Two other reps not investigated suggest harsher treatment of Ebersole. | Those comparators were not similarly situated; Reichard had differing supervisory role and motives. | Comparators not sufficiently similar; no pretext proven. |
| Policy as legitimate non-retaliatory reason and Reichard's authorization | Reichard authorized calls and should mitigate; termination tied to leave. | Reichard lacked power to modify policy; case courts do not second-guess business judgments. | Policy violation supports legitimate nondiscriminatory termination; Reichard authorization not probative. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hite v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 446 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2006) (temporal proximity insufficient alone; must show illegal motive)
- Bone v. G4S Youth Servs., LLC, 686 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2012) (employer may terminate for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons under McDonnell Douglas)
- Twymon v. Wells Fargo & Co., 462 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2006) (violation of policy as legitimate reason for termination)
- Chappell v. Bilco Co., 675 F.3d 1110 (8th Cir. 2012) (McDonnell Douglas framework described)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court, 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Burton v. Ark. Sec'y of State, 737 F.3d 1219 (8th Cir. 2013) (comparators must be similarly situated in all relevant respects)
- Britton v. City of Poplar Bluff, Mo., 244 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2001) (analysis of similarly situated comparators)
- Sowell v. Alumina Ceramics, Inc., 251 F.3d 678 (8th Cir. 2001) (temporal relationship between protected activity and adverse action must be very close)