Dees v. Iron Mountain Incorporated, 4:20-cv-01791

Background

Dees worked as a temporary worker for Iron Mountain beginning August 2019, became a full‑time Project Specialist on the Mercy Health project in March 2020, and his employment was project‑based and expected to end March 31, 2021.
Dees alleges repeated harassment and discriminatory comments and conduct primarily by coworker/supervisor Floyd Crenshaw and some conduct by Operations Supervisor Dwight Mullen (comments, bathroom incidents, teasing, isolation, disparate treatment claims).
After a March 24, 2020 COVID‑related incident at the facility, Dees was suspended pending investigation, later issued a final written warning for leaving without notifying an exempt supervisor and for early absences, and was reinstated (dispute over pay during suspension).
Dees filed an EEOC charge in May 2020; he was terminated for alleged poor productivity on August 26, 2020. Dees sued under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) for hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation.
The district court granted Iron Mountain summary judgment, concluding Dees failed to show harassment was motivated by race/gender, most alleged acts were not adverse employment actions, and there was no evidence of causation or pretext tied to the termination or other actions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Hostile work environment (MHRA)	Dees says repeated harassment (verbal insults, bathroom incidents, isolation, unequal treatment) amounted to a racially/gender‑based hostile environment	Iron Mountain: conduct not race/gender related, much by an African‑American male, and not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter employment terms	Grant SJ: Dees produced only equivocal testimony and insufficient evidence that harassment was motivated by race/gender or was severe/pervasive
Discrimination (termination)	Termination was motivated by race/gender and pretextual; other adverse acts show pattern	Iron Mountain: termination was legitimate — Dees was least productive on X‑ray team; other job changes were minor and non‑adverse	Grant SJ: only termination is a cognizable adverse action; Dees failed prima facie proof and produced no evidence showing employer's reason was pretext
Retaliation (internal complaint & EEOC charge)	Dees argues internal complaint and EEOC filing led to adverse actions including suspension, performance criticisms, isolation, and termination	Iron Mountain: internal complaint did not allege race/gender, supervisors were unaware of EEOC charge, and timing/causation is lacking	Grant SJ: Dees failed to show protected complaint clearly raised discrimination, no evidence decision‑makers knew of the EEOC charge, and no causal link or close temporal proximity
Evidentiary weight / hearsay at summary judgment	Dees relies on testimony describing statements by others	Iron Mountain: much of that is inadmissible hearsay and cannot defeat summary judgment	Court excluded hearsay testimony and relied only on admissible evidence for SJ ruling

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and moving party burden)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for genuine factual dispute at summary judgment)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for indirect evidence of discrimination)
Eivins v. Missouri Dep’t of Corr., 636 S.W.3d 155 (Mo. Ct. App. 2021) (elements of MHRA hostile‑work‑environment claim)
Bram v. AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC, 564 S.W.3d 787 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018) (MHRA hostile‑work‑environment analysis)
Chavero‑Linares v. Smith, 782 F.3d 1038 (8th Cir. 2015) (self‑serving testimony/affidavits insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
Henthorn v. Capitol Commc’ns, Inc., 359 F.3d 1021 (8th Cir. 2004) (only admissible evidence may defeat summary judgment)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (direct‑evidence standard for discrimination claims)
Singletary v. Missouri Dep’t of Corr., 423 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2005) (what constitutes an adverse employment action)