Guimaraes v. SuperValu, Inc., 674 F.3d 962

Guimaraes, a Brazilian-Canadian national, worked under an H-1B visa and sought permanent residency with SuperValu after a 2006 merger with Albertson's.
In 2007 Guimaraes relocated to Minneapolis as a Print Media/Checkout product BSM after SUPERFusion; workload increased about 20%.
Grubbs became Guimaraes's direct supervisor in 2008 and began criticizing her performance, leading to a sequence of Performance Action Plans (PAPs).
Guimaraes alleged Grubbs mocked her accent, requested repetition of her words, and implied performance issues tied to her national origin; she first raised discrimination in Oct 2008.
Guimaraes was placed on two PAPs (Nov 2008 and Dec 2008); after a restructuring, she was selected for termination from a decimated BSM role during FMLA in early 2009, effective May 15, 2009.
Roberts, whom Grubbs later supervised, faced analogous mistreatment; Guimaraes pursued a claim under Title VII and MHRA, which district court dismissed on summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Guimaraes proved national-origin discrimination.	Guimaraes asserts a prima facie case and argues pretext via PAP subjectivity and intent to terminate.	SuperValu contends no prima facie discrimination; PAPs were legitimate and pretext lacking evidence.	District court affirmed; no reasonable jury could find discrimination.
Whether Guimaraes proved retaliation for opposing discrimination.	Guimaraes contends timing, investigation flaws, Roberts's termination, and Grubbs's sole role show retaliation.	SuperValu argues timing is not causative; investigation was business judgment; Roberts's termination was for insubordination.	District court affirmed; record insufficient for a reasonable jury to find retaliation.

Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (defines McDonnell Douglas framework and de novo review on summary judgment)
Griffith v. City of Des Moines, 387 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2004) (pretext framework and evidentiary standards in discrimination cases)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (establishes the burden-shifting framework)
Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (Supreme Court 1981) (pretext and ultimate burden of persuasion guidance)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court 2000) (pretext standard and ultimate burden of proving discrimination)
Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U.S. 454 (Supreme Court 2006) (contextual interpretation of facially neutral statements for discriminatory intent)
Takele v. Mayo Clinic, 576 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2009) (prima facie discrimination standards and proof of animus)
Smith v. Fairview Ridges Hosp., 625 F.3d 1076 (8th Cir. 2010) (code words and national-origin discrimination analysis)
Omitted WL/LEXIS note, N/A () ()