55 F.4th 623
8th Cir.2022Background:
- Margaret Corkrean worked 28 years at Drake University and served as Budget and Office Manager for the College of Arts and Sciences; she has multiple sclerosis and chronic pain diagnosed in 2004.
- Gesine Gerhard became Dean in July 2018; conflicts arose over Corkrean’s erratic schedule, attendance, deadlines, and job performance; Gerhard learned of Corkrean’s MS in mid-September 2018.
- HR provided FMLA paperwork in September 2018; Corkrean completed and received FMLA approval; she was instructed to notify Gerhard of FMLA absences in advance.
- Multiple written performance warnings and a July 16, 2019 performance memorandum set improvement expectations; Drake did not formally investigate a July harassment complaint as university policy required.
- Corkrean filed an NLRB complaint on September 10, 2019; she was terminated on October 7, 2019 for ongoing performance deficiencies and unapproved non-FMLA absences; she does not dispute most documented deficiencies and does not claim Drake denied her FMLA leave.
- District court granted summary judgment to Drake and Gerhard on all claims; Corkrean appealed only FMLA retaliation and discrimination and ADA/ICRA retaliation claims; this Court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA retaliation | Termination was retaliation for exercising FMLA rights and filing harassment/NLRB complaints; employer deviated from harassment policies showing pretext | Termination based on documented, legitimate, nondiscriminatory performance deficiencies and unexcused attendance; FMLA leave was allowed and never punished | Affirmed for defendants: insufficient evidence of pretext or causal link; temporal proximity weak and performance issues predate protected activity |
| FMLA discrimination | Termination was discriminatory because of FMLA-protected absences | Same as above: neutral, well-documented reasons for discharge; no discriminatory intent shown | Affirmed for defendants: plaintiff failed to show discriminatory intent or pretext |
| ADA & ICRA retaliation | Retaliation for complaining about harassment and for protected medical-related absences | Same legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons; no causal connection; employer consistently documented performance problems | Affirmed for defendants: plaintiff cannot show pretext; ADA/ICRA claims fail for same reasons as FMLA claims |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996 (defines FMLA claim types and standards)
- Brown v. Diversified Distrib. Sys., LLC, 801 F.3d 901 (describes two primary methods to show pretext)
- Stallings v. Hussmann Corp., 447 F.3d 1041 (gives examples of evidence that can support pretext)
- Malloy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 756 F.3d 1088 (permits courts to address pretext where record is developed)
- Smith v. Allen Health Sys., Inc., 302 F.3d 827 (employer concerns predating protected activity undercut temporal-proximity inference)
- Wierman v. Casey’s Gen. Stores, 638 F.3d 984 (concurrent non-retaliatory motive undermines temporal proximity causation)
- Bone v. G4S Youth Servs., LLC, 686 F.3d 948 (employee has no greater protection against termination for non-FMLA reasons after using FMLA)
- Brandt v. City of Cedar Falls, 37 F.4th 470 (illustrative affirmance where documented deficiencies defeated pretext claim)