Julie McKey v. U.S. Bank National Association
978 F.3d 594
| 8th Cir. | 2020Background
- Julie McKey worked at U.S. Bank from 1975; from 2011–2016 she was a Securities Specialist handling client elections using XSP software.
- From 2014–2016 her formal ratings were mostly "3" (solid), but supervisors documented recurring performance problems and overtime; an XSP upgrade in 2015 prompted McKey to request extra training.
- In April 2016 McKey was placed on a 60-day performance improvement plan (PIP); she completed it July 8, 2016 but continued to make errors thereafter.
- In August 2016 a $62,000 Iberdrola election error initially implicated McKey, and supervisors identified other post-PIP mistakes; management directed McKey to find another job within 30 days on Sept. 13, 2016 and terminated her Oct. 13, 2016.
- McKey had emailed HR in April 2016 alleging her manager sought to have her fired due to age; she later sued under the Minnesota Human Rights Act for age discrimination, retaliation, and failure-to-hire; the district court granted summary judgment to U.S. Bank, and McKey appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination (termination) | McKey says firing was motivated by age despite "solid" ratings and favorable coworker testimony | U.S. Bank says termination was for documented poor performance and repeated errors, supported by PIP and contemporaneous reviews | Affirmed for U.S. Bank — employer gave legitimate nondiscriminatory reason and plaintiff did not show pretext |
| Pretext (comparators / manager bias / shifting reasons) | McKey points to younger comparators, manager hiring patterns, and alleged shifting reasons for firing | U.S. Bank shows comparators were not similarly situated; manager evidence is speculative; contemporaneous emails consistently cite performance issues | Affirmed — comparators not similarly situated, alleged bias speculative, no meaningful change in reasons shown |
| Retaliation for reporting discrimination | McKey contends reporting to HR was protected and led to adverse action | U.S. Bank argues no decisionmaker knew of report and timing alone is insufficient to show causation | Affirmed — no evidence of causation; four-month gap and lack of knowledge by decisionmakers defeat claim |
| Failure-to-hire (internal applications) | McKey asserts refusals to hire her into other roles show discriminatory/retaliatory motive | U.S. Bank says positions were filled, some deadlines missed, and recruiters were told of performance issues; reasons were non-discriminatory | Affirmed — explanations consistent; ages of successful applicants and alleged recruiter statements do not show pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (standards for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Beasley v. Warren Unilube, Inc., 933 F.3d 932 (summary judgment review and application of McDonnell Douglas in 8th Cir.)
- Aulick v. Skybridge Americas, Inc., 860 F.3d 613 (pretext standards in employment cases)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (standard for no genuine issue of material fact)
- Bahr v. Capella Univ., 788 N.W.2d 76 (Minn. 2010) (elements of retaliation under the MHRA)
- Bone v. G4S Youth Servs., LLC, 686 F.3d 948 (rigorous same-relevant-respects test for comparators)