Micah Stone v. McGraw-Hill Global, etc.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8546
8th Cir.2017Background
- Micah Stone, an African American, was hired by McGraw-Hill as a Sales Representative in 2007 and later promoted to a Learning Solutions Consultant (LSC) position at a starting salary of $85,000; he alleges an earlier verbal agreement for $95,000.
- Stone claims other white LSCs received comparable or higher salaries; two (Ritter, Scanlon) had higher starting pay and prior experience from competitors.
- After promotion Stone alleges he performed duties of both Sales Representative and LSC, asked for a “Spot Bonus” and was denied; he also alleges more onerous work requirements and interference with colleague relationships.
- Management issued Stone written warnings for communication, punctuality, follow-up, and organization deficiencies; Stone disputes many factual bases for the warnings and contends some incidents were mischaracterized.
- Stone alleges hearing Wildes say a racial slur about him and contends supervisors (Wildes, Nentwig) created conditions to push him out; Wildes and others deny the race-based motive or the specific statement.
- Stone was terminated for poor performance on April 26, 2012; he sued under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Missouri Human Rights Act; the district court granted summary judgment to McGraw-Hill and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Salary discrimination (starting pay) | Stone: paid less than two white hires; salary disparity due to race | McGraw-Hill: higher pay explained by prior experience, hires from competitors, territory and cost-of-living differences | Affirmed for McGraw-Hill — Stone failed to show those higher-paid white hires were similarly situated or that employer reasons were pretextual |
| Spot Bonus denial (compensating dual duties) | Stone: performed both roles and was denied bonus others received | McGraw-Hill: others (e.g., Schleicher) also worked dual roles and were not paid; no similarly situated comparator identified | Affirmed — Stone failed to identify a similarly situated employee who was paid differently |
| Hostile work environment | Stone: racial comment and ongoing interference created hostile environment | McGraw-Hill: isolated comment and workplace conflicts stemmed from interpersonal/managerial issues, not race | Affirmed — single alleged comment and record insufficiently severe/pervasive or causally linked to race |
| Discriminatory discharge | Stone: termination was pretext for race-based firing | McGraw-Hill: termination based on documented performance issues and failure to meet improvement plan | Affirmed — Stone did not show the employer didn’t honestly believe performance problems or that reasons were pretextual |
| Retaliation | Stone: alleged retaliation for protesting disparate treatment | McGraw-Hill: no causal connection; plaintiff abandoned the claim on appeal | Affirmed — retaliation claim abandoned and lacks evidence of causal nexus |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination)
- Singletary v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 423 F.3d 886 (prima facie and hostile-work-environment standards)
- Onyiah v. St. Cloud State Univ., 684 F.3d 711 (McDonnell Douglas application and similarly situated standard)
- Tademe v. St. Cloud State Univ., 328 F.3d 982 (hostile work environment requires race-based motivation vs. interdepartmental conflict)
- Macias Soto v. Core-Mark Int’l, Inc., 521 F.3d 837 (pretext analysis focuses on employer’s honest belief)
- Barber v. C1 Truck Driver Training, LLC, 656 F.3d 782 (need evidence other employees were not subject to same investigation for similar conduct)
- Arraleh v. County of Ramsey, 461 F.3d 967 (causal nexus required for retaliation; temporal proximity alone insufficient)