Moses v. Dassault Falcon Jet-Wilmington Corp
894 F.3d 911
8th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Gerald Moses, hired in 1997 as an avionics technician, alleged age- and disability-based harassment, denial of accommodation, and retaliation by employer Dassault Falcon Jet (DFJ); he was 59 when terminated in June 2014.
- Moses reported concentration problems and medication use after neck surgeries; DFJ requested an independent medical exam (IME).
- Dr. Scott Carle’s IME (Sept. 2013) concluded Moses could not perform essential functions, no known accommodations existed, and restrictions were effectively permanent; no contrary medical opinion undermined that report.
- DFJ placed Moses on medical leave, later offered a lower-paying security position (declined by Moses), and terminated his employment; Moses had filed an EEOC charge in Nov. 2013 (before termination) and received a right-to-sue letter in May 2014.
- The district court granted summary judgment for DFJ on ADEA, ADA, and Arkansas Civil Rights Act (ACRA) claims, finding failure to exhaust administrative remedies for termination claims, insufficient hostile-work-environment evidence, unrebutted medical evidence defeating accommodation and retaliation claims.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, adopting the district court’s conclusions on exhaustion, hostile work environment, failure-to-accommodate, and retaliation based on the IME and legal standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination claims are timely under EEOC charge (continuing-violation) | Moses: termination is part of a continuing hostile-work-environment so no new EEOC charge required | DFJ: termination is a discrete act requiring a new EEOC charge | Court: Termination is a discrete act; Moses failed to exhaust; termination claims dismissed |
| Hostile work environment (age/disability) | Moses: repeated harassment, supervisor comments, tool tampering, false drunkenness accusation created hostile environment | DFJ: incidents were isolated/rude workplace conduct, not tied to protected class | Court: Moses failed to link conduct to age/disability and conduct was not severe or pervasive; summary judgment for DFJ |
| Failure to accommodate under ADA | Moses: DFJ did not attempt reasonable accommodation (e.g., transfer away from certain supervisor) | DFJ: IME showed Moses could not perform essential functions and no reasonable accommodations existed | Court: Unrebutted IME shows no known modifications; Moses not qualified with accommodation; claim fails |
| Retaliation under ADA | Moses: decline in evaluations and termination followed his requests/complaints—shows retaliation | DFJ: termination based on inability to perform per medical evidence, not retaliation | Court: No but-for causation; unrebutted IME supports legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason; retaliation claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (hostile-work-environment vs. discrete-act timing rule)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (hostile-work-environment threshold; ordinary workplace tribulations excluded)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (de novo review of summary judgment in employment context)
- Sellers v. Deere & Co., 791 F.3d 938 (application of hostile-work-environment standards)
- Hutson v. Wells Dairy, Inc., 578 F.3d 823 (termination is a discrete act starting limitations period)