Mary Doucette v. Morrison County, Minnesota
763 F.3d 978
8th Cir.2014Background
- Doucette, after 30 years with Morrison County, was terminated in Nov 2011 for repeated record-keeping errors.
- She alleged sex and age discrimination under MHRA and retaliation for filing a discrimination complaint, plus FMLA retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment on the FMLA and MHRA discrimination claims, remanding only the reprisal claim.
- She was supervised by jail administrator Monnier and Sheriff Wetzel; prior discipline included 2007 reprimands and a 2010 letter, with a 2011 five-day suspension and a three-day suspension in mid-2011.
- Doucette took FMLA leave in Aug 2011, filed a grievance and discrimination complaint just before leave, returned in Oct 2011, and was fired a month later; she was 55 at the time.
- District court rejected Doucette’s MHRA discrimination claims, granting summary judgment to the County; Doucette appeals only the discrimination ruling, not the FMLA claim.
- The Eighth Circuit reviews de novo, applying McDonnell Douglas framework to MHRA discrimination claims and evaluating pretext at step three
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doucette proved sex discrimination under MHRA | Doucette claims the discharge was motivated by sex. | County asserts discharge due to repeated billing errors and poor performance. | No genuine issue; County’s legitimate non-discriminatory rationale upheld. |
| Whether Doucette proved sex-plus-age discrimination under MHRA | Doucette alleges older woman treated worse than younger men. | County did not treat similarly situated younger or male employees differently. | No genuine issue; no cognizable sex-plus-age discrimination proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (establishes the three-step burden-shifting framework)
- Elam v. Regions Fin. Corp., 601 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2010) (briefs on pretext must be evaluated with employer’s justification in mind)
- Cherry v. Ritenour Sch. Dist., 361 F.3d 474 (8th Cir. 2004) (rigorous standard for evaluating pretext at step three)
- Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (recognizes sex-plus-age/dual-protected-class claims in some contexts)
- Pullar v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 701, 582 N.W.2d 273 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998) (recognition of sex-plus-age discrimination under MHRA in state appellate context)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (applies de novo review for MHRA discrimination claims and explains burden shifting)
- Rose-Maston v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 133 F.3d 1104 (8th Cir. 1998) (addresses consideration of past performance vs. recent conduct in pretext analysis)