Clarence Cosby v. Steak N Shake, 804 F.3d 1242

Clarence Cosby was hired as a Steak N Shake (SNS) general manager in Dec. 2009 and received progressive performance warnings in 2010 for absences, poor store performance, and missed duties.
SNS managers (Pannullo and HR manager Pfeiffer) documented a meeting on Nov. 3, 2010 informing Cosby he would be demoted to store manager effective Nov. 17 for poor performance; Cosby later submitted a short-term disability form (Nov. 16) stating he had major depression and was unable to work.
SNS approved 60 days of short-term disability leave (backdated to Nov. 8); the demotion was entered in SNS records while Cosby was on leave and he returned in Jan. 2011 as a store manager at a different store.
In Aug. 2011 Cosby received written warnings for grabbing a subordinate’s arm and losing his driver’s license (a policy violation); he resigned immediately after receiving those warnings and later sued under the Missouri Human Rights Act alleging disability discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge.
The district court granted SNS summary judgment on all claims; Cosby appealed only the disability discrimination and constructive discharge dismissals, arguing MHRA’s "contributing factor" standard and that his resignation was compelled by intolerable conditions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether disability was a "contributing factor" in demotion	Cosby: Demotion timing and evidence create triable issue that depression contributed	SNS: Decision to demote occurred Nov. 3, before SNS knew of depression	Demotion preceded notice of disability; no contributing-factor proof; summary judgment affirmed
Whether demotion date for causation is effective date or date informed	Cosby: Demotion arguably took effect later, so could coincide with notice	SNS: Notification date (Nov. 3) is relevant for causation analysis	Employee was informed before employer knew of disability; notification date controls
Whether work conditions were intolerable (constructive discharge)	Cosby: Written warnings, supervisor comments, and alleged mocking created intolerable environment	SNS: Warnings were disciplinary for admitted policy violations; comments insufficient; Cosby quit immediately without giving chance to remedy	Conditions not objectively intolerable; employer lacked notice/opportunity to remedy; summary judgment affirmed
Whether employer intended or could foresee forcing resignation	Cosby: Supervisor remarks implied intent to continue conduct and pressure him to quit	SNS: Remarks isolated and disciplinary action lawful; no evidence employer intended to force resignation	No evidence of intent or foreseeability; Cosby did not provide employer chance to address issues

Minn. ex rel. N. Pac. Ctr., Inc. v. BNSF Ry. Co., 686 F.3d 567 (8th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standard and view of facts for appeal)
Hohn v. BNSF Ry. Co., 707 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 2013) (appellate affirmation can rest on any record-supported basis)
Jain v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 779 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 2015) (MHRA "contributing factor" causation standard)
Argenyi v. Creighton Univ., 703 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2013) (unsupported contrary testimony cannot create genuine dispute)
Brown v. Diversified Distrib. Sys., LLC, 801 F.3d 901 (8th Cir.) (employer notice date is relevant to causation analysis)
Williams v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 223 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2000) (definition of constructive discharge)
Watson v. Heartland Health Labs., Inc., 790 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2015) (elements for MHRA constructive discharge claim)
Tenkku v. Normandy Bank, 348 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 2003) (discipline under policy not alone sufficient for constructive discharge)
Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2002) (constructive discharge requires more than unpleasant environment)