Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Product Fabricators, Inc.
763 F.3d 963
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- PFI is a Minnesota sheet metal fabricator; Breaux hired in 1997, rehired 2005, supervised by Mike Murphy, Sr. since 2007.
- EEOC investigated a separate disability discrimination claim (Anderson) starting Feb 2008; Breaux’s interview conduct is contested.
- Breaux reported a right shoulder injury in Sep 2008; received workers’ compensation and was moved to a less physically demanding supervisor role.
- Breaux’s performance deteriorated May–Sept 2009; he was terminated Sept 1, 2009 after attempting to discuss surgery timing and responsibilities.
- EEOC filed ADA suit Sept 2011; M&M purchased PFI assets Oct 2010; district court granted summary judgment for PFI on ADA claims; the EEOC and Breaux appeal.
- Anderson’s ADA case settled in fall 2010; case proceeds against PFI and M&M as successor; later disposition affected only federal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA discrimination: whether Breaux’s termination was due to disability | Breaux’s injury and timing show causation and pretext | PFI offered a legitimate non-discriminatory reason: poor performance | No genuine dispute; termination for poor performance; no pretext shown |
| Failure to accommodate discrimination: interactive process exercised? | Breaux requested leave or accommodation for surgery | No explicit accommodation request; no failure to engage in interactive process | District court proper; no requirement satisfied for an accommodation request to trigger interactive process |
| Retaliation for EEOC activity or accommodation request | Termination retaliatory for EEOC interview participation or accommodation request | No causal link; temporal proximity insufficient; legitimate non-retaliatory reason | No triable issue; no retaliation shown |
| Second retaliation claim (EEOC interview participation) | Breaux’s EEOC interview participation linked to termination | Over a year elapsed; no direct evidence; timing insufficient | No causal connection; McDonnell Douglas framework confirms no retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Lors v. Dean, 746 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2014) (temporal proximity can support causation but here was insufficient)
- Young v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., 152 F.3d 1018 (8th Cir. 1998) (McDonnell Douglas framework in ADA retaliation)
- Lake v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 596 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2010) (pretext requires showing of policy or similarly situated employees)
- Evance v. Trumann Health Servs., LLC, 719 F.3d 673 (8th Cir.) (rigorous similarly situated standard for pretext)
- Kratzer v. Rockwell Collins, Inc., 398 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 2005) (interactive process triggered by employee request for accommodation)
- Fitzgerald v. Action, Inc., 521 F.3d 867 (8th Cir. 2008) (policy-based discipline analysis for pretext)
- Russell v. TG Mo. Corp., 340 F.3d 735 (8th Cir. 2003) (non-following written policies can bear on pretext)
- Young-Losee v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc., 631 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2011) (example with direct evidence of retaliation)
- Sisk v. Picture People, Inc., 669 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2012) (temporal proximity rule in retaliation)
- Hill v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., 737 F.3d 1218 (8th Cir. 2013) (retaliation standard under ADA)