817 F.3d 624
8th Cir.2016Background
- Kelleher worked as an overnight stocker for Wal‑Mart since 1997 and was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis; she had long‑standing restriction of no ladder use and occasional other limitations.
- From 1997–2011 Wal‑Mart generally accommodated her verbal no‑ladder restriction; formal accommodation requests (RFAs) were later routed to corporate Accommodations Services.
- After a June 2011 RFA with medical restrictions (no ladder, limited lifting/standing, etc.), corporate determined in Oct. 2011 she could not perform stocker essential functions and instructed the store to seek reassignment while placing her on leave if no position was available.
- Store management identified and offered an overnight cashier position that omitted ladder use, paid $0.20/hour more, and was less physically strenuous though it involved some customer interaction and continued stocking duties.
- Kelleher accepted the cashier job (she later was permitted to refrain from actual cashiering while continuing to stock), received lower performance ratings and a slightly smaller raise after June 2011, and alleged harassment (eye rolls, heavier assignments, being forced to work alone).
- The district court granted Wal‑Mart summary judgment on failure‑to‑accommodate/discrimination, retaliation, and hostile‑work‑environment claims; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to accommodate / disability discrimination — whether employer denied reasonable accommodation or took adverse action | Kelleher: Wal‑Mart reassigned her to a position she felt forced into and that humiliated her; corporate decision ended prior accommodations | Wal‑Mart: Reassignment to overnight cashier was less strenuous, omitted ladder use, included a pay increase; she could perform the job and store tried to accommodate | No adverse employment action; failed prima facie case; summary judgment for Wal‑Mart |
| Retaliation — whether adverse action was causally connected to protected activity | Kelleher: After her June 2011 RFA, ratings dropped and pay increase was smaller, supporting causal link | Wal‑Mart: Rating drop was for timeliness/performance issues; manager unaware of RFA; legitimate nonretaliatory reason offered | Even assuming prima facie case, Kelleher failed to show pretext beyond temporal proximity; summary judgment affirmed |
| Hostile work environment / harassment — whether conduct was severe or pervasive | Kelleher: Management gave difficult assignments, eye rolls, ostracism, higher standards and monitoring | Wal‑Mart: Alleged conduct was minor, non‑threatening, and unrelated to disability; no evidence of severe/pervasive harassment | Conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive; no hostile work environment established |
| Duty to engage in interactive process regarding new position | Kelleher: Wal‑Mart should have initiated or continued the interactive process when reassigning her | Wal‑Mart: Kelleher did not formally request accommodations after starting cashier job; interactive process is initiated by employee | Court noted employee must initiate interactive process; Kelleher did not do so, so no relief on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Fenney v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Co., 327 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2003) (minor changes in duties that cause no material disadvantage are not adverse actions)
- Sellers v. Deere & Co., 791 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2015) (increased workload can be adverse if it materially changes duties)
- Jackman v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 728 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. 2013) (minor, unwelcome changes that cause no material disadvantage do not constitute adverse employment actions)
- Schaffhauser v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 794 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2015) (elements of failure‑to‑accommodate claim; employee must initiate interactive process)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile‑work‑environment standard: harassment must be severe or pervasive)