Chivers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11688
8th Cir.2011Background
- Clay, an African-American woman, became Wal-Mart Vision Center manager in Bloomington in 2005.
- She alleged discrimination by LaRae, Tina, and Knipp and filed formal complaints in 2005 and 2006 with Wal-Mart management.
- Wal-Mart investigated the complaints; Clay was disciplined on August 28, 2006 for poor customer/member service.
- On August 29, 2006, Clay had a lengthy phone call with Munson about work issues; Munson later received compensation for the time.
- Wal-Mart terminated Clay on September 6, 2006, asserting violation of the Working Off The Clock policy based on the August 29 call.
- Clay and Dolores Chivers sued in state court; Wal-Mart removed to federal court; district court granted summary judgment for Wal-Mart; only retaliation claims were appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie case of retaliation | Clay engaged in protected activity via multiple complaints. | Wal-Mart maintained discipline for rule violations irrespective of complaints. | Clay established prima facie retaliation; causation questioned for some actions but material facts fail. |
| Adverse actions following protected activity | Various actions (disrespect, exclusion from meetings, discipline) were adverse. | Most actions were not adverse or not causally connected to protected activity. | Most alleged actions were not adverse actions or lacked causal link to protected activity. |
| Causation and temporal proximity | Timing between complaints and actions shows causation. | Temporal proximity is insufficient where prior discipline occurred and policy was in play. | Temporal proximity insufficient to establish causation; prior conduct undermines inference. |
| Pretext for termination | The stated policy violation was a pretext for retaliation. | Thoennes honestly believed Clay violated the policy based on Munson's statement. | Wal-Mart's proffered reason was not shown to be pretextual; the belief in violation was honest. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for retaliation)
- Colenburg v. Starcon Int'l, Inc., 619 F.3d 986 (8th Cir. 2010) (retaliation analyzed under McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Fercello v. Cnty. of Ramsey, 612 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2010) (prima facie elements and shifting burdens in MHRA retaliation cases)
- Richey v. City of Independence, 540 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 2008) (employer's honest belief in misconduct can sustain adverse action; preemption of contrary interpretations)
- Arraleh v. Cnty. of Ramsey, 461 F.3d 967 (8th Cir. 2006) (three-week proximity may suffice for causal inference in retaliation cases)