Clark v. O'Reilly Automotive
4:09-cv-00851
E.D. Ark.May 23, 2011Background
- Clark, a 51-year-old with lupus, fibromyalgia, diabetes, arthritis, and prior hip replacements, worked part-time as an auto parts specialist in Jacksonville, AR, starting June 9, 2008.
- Clark alleges a hostile environment and discrimination stemming from conflicts with co-worker Hanson, including hostile statements and alleged threats by Hanson.
- Hanson was repeatedly written up; Clark faced disciplinary actions himself for unrelated incidents, including a racially inappropriate schedule note and appearance policy violation.
- After complaints to HR and the TIPs hotline, a management investigation occurred; Clark’s credibility and the investigation's scope—especially regarding night-shift workers—became contested.
- In January 2009, Clark was offered a transfer to Gravel Ridge, which he accepted after considering a longer commute; in April 2009 he filed an EEOC charge alleging age and disability discrimination and retaliation.
- Clark was placed on family/medical leave (PLA) in July 2009 and ultimately terminated July 31, 2009, for not returning after PLA leave.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Clark disabled under ADA/ACRA? | Clark is substantially limited in major life activity due to lupus and related symptoms. | Clark's job functions could be performed with breaks and part-time hours; no substantial limitation shown. | Triable issue exists as to actual impairment; summary judgment denied on disability presence. |
| Did Clark suffer a hostile work environment claim? | Hanson’s conduct created a pervasive hostile environment affecting terms and conditions of employment. | Harassment was not severe or pervasive enough and was not attributable to age/disability to meet standard. | Summary judgment granted for O’Reilly; no objectively hostile environment. |
| Did Clark state a claim for disability discrimination (failure to accommodate)? | O’Reilly failed to reasonably accommodate Clark’s disability, including leave and potential crutch use. | PLA policy was neutral and not tied to disability; no reasonable accommodation possible given essential duties. | Summary judgment appropriate; failure-to-accommodate claim barred. |
| Are Clark’s termination and retaliation claims viable under ACRA? | Termination followed complaints about Hanson and EEOC filing; connection plausibly retaliatory. | Employer provided a legitimate reason (failing to report after PLA); no evidence of pretext. | Summary judgment appropriate; no pretext shown for termination or retaliation. |
| Are Clark’s ADEA claims viable? | Termination/hours reduction and transfer were age-discriminatory. | No evidence linking actions to age; relationship with Hanson not shown to be age-based. | Summary judgment appropriate; no reasonable inference of age discrimination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norman v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 606 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2010) (ADA/ACRA disability definition framework)
- Nyrop v. Independent School Dist. No. 11, 616 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2010) (principles for substantially limiting impairment)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (standard for hostile work environment liability)
- Wedow v. City of Kansas City, 442 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. 2006) (narrow exception to EEOC exhaustion for related acts)
- Burkhart v. Am. Railcar Indus., Inc., 603 F.3d 472 (8th Cir. 2010) (McDonnell Douglas framework application in retaliation/ADA claims)