947 F.3d 500
8th Cir.2020Background
- Kristin Naca, an assistant professor with a long‑term illness (chronic pain/fatigue), requested and received workplace accommodations from Macalester College and remained on track for tenure through early 2015.
- In May 2015 a former student and work‑study assistant ("Jane Doe") complained that Naca had initiated sexual contact while Doe was still a student; Naca acknowledged inviting Doe to her home, asking "Do you want me to make a pass at you?", and beginning a sexual relationship three days after Doe graduated.
- Macalester conducted a formal investigation and multiple levels of review; administrators, the faculty personnel committee, and the college president agreed to terminate Naca for violating the student‑teacher relationship policy.
- Naca sued asserting 35 claims, including disability discrimination under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA); the district court dismissed many claims and later granted summary judgment on several others.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Naca’s disability discrimination claims for failure to plead plausible facts and declined to consider a "cat’s paw" theory raised for the first time on appeal.
- The court also affirmed the denial of Naca’s untimely motion to amend to add FMLA claims and upheld summary judgment on other discrimination claims and on the failure‑to‑accommodate claim because Naca performed essential job functions with accommodations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disability discrimination claims (Rehab Act/ADA/MHRA) were plausibly pleaded | Naca alleged disparate treatment tied to her disability and procedural irregularities in handling her accommodations and the complaint | Macalester argued the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible discrimination claim | Affirmed dismissal for failure to state a plausible claim |
| Whether a "cat’s paw" theory (agency/causal influence by former provost) supports discrimination claims | Naca contended earlier provost’s handling of accommodations and the complaint tainted the termination | Macalester: theory was not raised below; cannot be considered on appeal | Court declined to consider cat’s paw theory because it was not raised in district court |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying leave to amend to add FMLA claims | Naca sought to add FMLA claims late in litigation | Macalester: motion was untimely and amendment would be futile | Denial affirmed as within district court’s discretion |
| Whether summary judgment on other discrimination claims and failure‑to‑accommodate was proper | Naca argued discriminatory discharge and inadequate accommodation | Macalester: termination was for legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (sexual relationship with student); accommodations enabled performance of essential functions | Summary judgment affirmed: legitimate reason and no sufficient evidence of pretext; failure‑to‑accommodate fails because Naca could perform essential functions with provided accommodations |
Key Cases Cited
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (establishes "cat’s paw" theory where a biased subordinate’s actions causally lead to adverse action)
- Orr v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 297 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2002) (appellate review generally does not consider issues raised for first time on appeal)
- Gilbert v. Des Moines Area Cmty. Coll., 495 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2007) (appellate review limited to arguments presented below)
- Burchett v. Target Corp., 340 F.3d 510 (8th Cir. 2003) (failure‑to‑accommodate claim fails where employee can perform essential job functions with accommodations)
- Amir v. St. Louis Univ., 184 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 1999) (evidence of pretext where employer changes or adopts a new policy coincident with adverse action)