Krueger v. Hershend Family Entertainment Corp. (TWP1)
3:14-cv-00289
E.D. Tenn.Oct 29, 2015Background
- Krueger was a seasonal Dollywood Host (2010–2013). After a 2012 suspension that docked 15 evaluation points, Dollywood initially revoked her rehire letter but reinstated it to a 77 score after review.
- Dollywood closed Krueger’s prior attraction and reassigned her to the River Rampage (a water ride) for 2013; safety training and SOPs governed operations and required Safety approval for medical sunglasses.
- In June–July 2013 Krueger received counseling and a suspension for performance/discipline issues; on July 6 she was observed in alleged safety lapses (allowing a shoeless child to board, inattentiveness in a tower position).
- Krueger reported a toe injury around July 5–9 and sought treatment July 11; she alleges Safety did not follow handbook procedures and that HR reacted negatively to her workers’ compensation claim (including an alleged McNeil remark during termination: “She’s not gettin’ a dime and she’s not gettin’ a claim for Workmen’s Comp”).
- Dollywood terminated Krueger on July 12, 2013 for safety violations and prior disciplinary history. Procedurally, on summary judgment the court DENIED judgment on the retaliatory-discharge (workers’ compensation) claim and ADA failure-to-accommodate claim, and GRANTED summary judgment on abandoned TPPA, Title VII, and FLSA claims; mitigation of damages remained a jury issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliatory discharge (workers’ compensation) | Krueger says termination was retaliation for seeking workers’ comp; cites McNeil’s remark, timing, and failure to follow Safety procedures | Dollywood asserts legitimate, non-retaliatory reason: safety violations supported by witness statements and prior discipline; McNeil’s remark is not direct evidence | Court: denied summary judgment — plaintiff presented circumstantial evidence (animus, temporal proximity, policy breaches) and some evidence of pretext such that a jury could find retaliation |
| TPPA claim | Krueger alleged discharge for refusing to conceal illegal activity (denying WC claims) | Dollywood moved for summary judgment | Court: claim abandoned by plaintiff; summary judgment granted for defendant |
| Title VII (religion) | Krueger alleged religious harassment/discrimination and retaliation | Dollywood moved for summary judgment | Court: claim abandoned by plaintiff; summary judgment granted for defendant |
| ADA failure to accommodate (sunglasses) | Krueger asserts eye impairment substantially limits seeing in sunlight and she requested accommodation (physician note) but employer denied/ignored it | Dollywood contends impairment is not substantially limiting and Krueger failed to comply with handbook procedure (no physician note in Safety Office) | Court: denied summary judgment — court found triable issues whether Krueger was disabled under ADA and whether she properly requested accommodation (testimony raised factual dispute) |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment burdens and standards)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary-judgment evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine-issue and materiality standards on summary judgment)
- Johnson v. Kroger Co., 319 F.3d 858 (remarks that require inference are not direct evidence of discrimination)
- Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799 ("honest belief" rule — employer entitled to rely reasonably on facts before it)
- Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 1078 (methods to show pretext)