Gibson v. American Greetings Corp.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4475
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Lena Gibson, African-American female, employed at AGC since 1975 in various roles; James Gibson, African-American male, employed since 1990; Lena alleges race and age discrimination and retaliation for internal complaints; James alleges race and age discrimination and retaliation related to Lena's complaints and his own EEOC charge; AGC has a Solutions mediation program and a progressive discipline policy affecting promotions/transfers; Lena faced multiple written warnings starting in 2005-2006 and sought cross-training; James faced multiple warnings culminating in termination in 2008; district court granted summary judgment for AGC on all claims; appellate review focuses on whether the Gibsons can show direct evidence or meet McDonnell Douglas framework to survive summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Gibsons proved race discrimination under McDonnell Douglas | Gibson claims pretext and discriminatory intent based on disparate treatment and warnings | AGC's reasons were non-discriminatory and supported by record | Summary judgment upheld; no pretext shown |
| Whether the Gibsons proved age discrimination under McDonnell Douglas | Gibson claims younger employees were given opportunities and James replaced by younger worker | AGC provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for actions | Summary judgment upheld; no pretext shown |
| Whether Lena and James proved retaliation under Title VII | Actions followed protected activity (Solutions claims/EEOC charge) and were adverse | Termination and discipline were based on documented misconduct and policy | Summary judgment upheld for retaliation claims |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Haigh v. Gelita USA, Inc., 632 F.3d 464 (8th Cir.2011) (pretext framework requires showing legitimate reason and discriminatory motive)
- Lake v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 596 F.3d 871 (8th Cir.2010) (ways to show pretext: policy, disparate treatment, or shifting explanation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (requires genuine issue of material fact for trial; scintilla of evidence insufficient)
- Wierman v. Casey's Gen. Stores, 638 F.3d 984 (8th Cir.2011) (pretext evidence must raise genuine doubt about motive)
- O'Bryan v. KTIV Television, 64 F.3d 1188 (8th Cir.1995) (timing alone may be insufficient to support retaliation claim)
- Richmond v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Minn., 957 F.2d 595 (8th Cir.1992) (legitimate non-discriminatory reasons support termination)