Brice S. Cody v. Prairie Ethanol, LLC, 763 F.3d 992

Prairie Ethanol hired Cody as a plant operator in Mitchell, SD in 2006.
Cody sustained a neck injury in June 2007; doctors imposed restrictions on lifting, bending, and neck/back movement.
Prairie Ethanol accommodated Cody until August 2008, then discussions about light duty began.
Cody was promoted to lead operator in August 2007 and later warned for aggressive plant operation behavior.
Cody was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) in September 2008 and demoted; he later had another PIP and continued performance issues.
Prairie Ethanol terminated Cody’s employment on January 21, 2009, citing concerns about continued performance problems.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cody is disabled under the ADA.	Cody is disabled per ADA due to chronic limitations and work restrictions.	Prairie Ethanol disputes that Cody’s condition qualifies as a disability.	Court assumed prima facie disability for analysis; not decisive.
Whether Cody was qualified for the job with or without accommodation.	Cody could perform the essential functions with reasonable accommodation.	Disqualification due to performance issues despite accommodations.	Court treated as part of prima facie framework; focus on justification for discharge.
Whether Prairie Ethanol’s discharge was motivated by disability rather than performance.	Discharge was pretextual to mask discrimination.	Discharge based on Cody’s aggressive operation and risk to plant; legitimate reason.	Prairie Ethanol’s justification deemed legitimate and non-discriminatory.
Whether Cody shows pretext using timing, corporate approval, or comparators.	Temporal proximity and comparator evidence support pretext.	Timing alone and comparator evidence are insufficient; not similarly situated.	No genuine issue of material fact on pretext; summary judgment affirmed.
Whether the other employee evidence demonstrates pretext.	A non-disabled employee with lesser infractions was treated more favorably.	Not sufficiently similarly situated in severity or plant-operating risk.	Not enough to show pretext; no genuine dispute as to pretext.

St. Martin v. City of St. Paul, 680 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2012) (McDonnell Douglas framework governs ADA discrimination claims)
Logan v. Liberty Healthcare Corp., 416 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2005) (timing alone is not enough to show pretext)
Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc., 169 F.3d 1131 (8th Cir. 1999) (pretext requires showing that the reason was false and discrimination was real)
Christopher v. Adam’s Mark Hotels, 137 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 1998) (pretext analysis under McDonnell Douglas framework)
Smith v. Allen Health Sys., Inc., 302 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2002) (evidence of pretext evaluated in light of employer’s justification)
Sprenger v. Fed. Home Loan Bank, 253 F.3d 1106 (8th Cir. 2001) (pretext evidence considerations in ADA claims)
Logan v. Liberty Healthcare Corp., 416 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2005) (timing and pretext standards in discrimination cases)
Scroggins v. Univ. of Minn., 221 F.3d 1042 (8th Cir. 2000) (similarly situated standard for disparate treatment)
Harvey v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 38 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 1994) (disparate treatment and pretext standards)
Fiero v. CSG Systems, Inc., --- F.3d --- (8th Cir. 2014) (rigorous test for similarly situated employees)