Bernard v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., 398 F.Supp.3d 439

Background

Craig Bernard, a longtime St. Jude territory manager in Birmingham, Alabama, was terminated on September 6, 2016 after a 90-day Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) that he largely failed to complete.
Bernard is over 40 and has a long history of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (in remission), notified St. Jude of immunotherapy in April 2016, and alleges age and disability discrimination and retaliation.
Leading up to the PIP and termination, Bernard experienced declining CRM sales (2015–Q1 2016), complaints from team members (Mouron and Crawford) about his leadership/communications, and a 30-day account suspension at Brookwood that he initially failed to report to management.
St. Jude promoted and reallocated staff (e.g., rehiring/promoting Rachelle Mouron in Feb. 2016 and reallocating UAB commissions) and placed Bernard on a PIP in May 2016; HR investigated Bernard’s discrimination complaints and found them unsubstantiated.
By the PIP deadline, Bernard had not met most reasonable, documented PIP requirements; St. Jude terminated him for performance-related reasons. Bernard sued under the ADEA, ADA, and Minnesota Human Rights Act, plus retaliation claims.
The district court granted summary judgment to St. Jude: the court found (1) earlier commission loss was time-barred, (2) placement on a reasonably framed PIP is not an adverse action, and (3) there was no direct evidence or admissible circumstantial evidence of age/disability discrimination or retaliation sufficient to show pretext.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the loss of UAB commissions (Feb 2016) an actionable adverse employment action?	Bernard: losing commissions is a discrete adverse act supporting discrimination claim.	St. Jude: that act occurred >180 days before EEOC charge and is time-barred.	Held: Time-barred; cannot be treated as stand-alone adverse act though may be considered for context.
Is placement on the May 2016 PIP an adverse employment action for discrimination/retaliation?	Bernard: PIP led to constructive harm and was timed with his illness and complaints.	St. Jude: PIP set reasonable, minimally onerous tasks and is not an adverse action.	Held: PIP with reasonable expectations is not an adverse employment action.
Did St. Jude terminate Bernard because of age or disability (or both) rather than for performance?	Bernard: evidence of ageist comments, preferential treatment of younger employees, timing after disclosure of immunotherapy shows pretext.	St. Jude: articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons—declining sales, team complaints, Brookwood suspension, and failure to comply with PIP.	Held: No direct evidence; circumstantial evidence insufficient to show pretext. Summary judgment for St. Jude on ADEA and ADA claims.
Did St. Jude terminate Bernard in retaliation for his internal complaints (May 5/14, 2016)?	Bernard: his complaints were protected activity and temporal proximity supports causation.	St. Jude: intervening adverse events (PIP noncompliance, complaints, suspension) break causal link; employer had legitimate reason.	Held: Causation and pretext lacking; retaliation claims fail.

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment burden and standards)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (discrete acts/time-bar for EEOC charge)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation/adverse-action standard principles)
Fiero v. CSG Sys., Inc., 759 F.3d 874 (8th Cir.) (placement on PIP generally not an adverse action)
Kiel v. Selected Artificials, Inc., 169 F.3d 1131 (8th Cir.) (intervening misconduct can defeat causal inference despite temporal proximity)
Wilking v. Ramsey Cty., 153 F.3d 869 (8th Cir.) (court will not second-guess legitimate business reasons for termination)