R. Henson v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 3 F.4th 1075

Background

Randy Henson worked for Union Pacific (and its predecessor) from 1979 until he retired August 1, 2018 (age 63). In October 2017 he filed an administrative charge alleging age discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation.
Henson alleged position changes and harassing comments, including one interaction with Missouri-based manager Foster B. McDaniel who allegedly told Henson the job would be eliminated after Henson retired.
Henson sued Union Pacific in Missouri state court under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) and sued McDaniel for aiding and abetting; Union Pacific removed the case to federal court asserting fraudulent joinder.
The district court dismissed McDaniel as fraudulently joined (denying remand), granted judgment on the pleadings for Union Pacific on Henson’s constructive discharge (and related age-discrimination/retaliation claims), and later granted summary judgment to Union Pacific on the hostile-work-environment claim.
On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed: it held Henson failed to state a colorable aiding-and-abetting claim against McDaniel and that Henson had not administratively exhausted a discrete constructive-discharge claim; the record also failed to show harassment sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McDaniel was properly joined on MHRA aiding-and-abetting and retaliation claims	McDaniel’s supervisory role and his allegedly age-related statement to Henson show he aided/encouraged discrimination/retaliation	McDaniel’s single alleged remark and general supervisory status are insufficient to show substantial assistance or active involvement	Dismissal for fraudulent joinder affirmed — complaint lacked colorable aiding-and-abetting/retaliation claims against McDaniel
Whether Henson exhausted administrative remedies for a constructive-discharge claim	The constructive-discharge claim is reasonably related to the October 2017 charge alleging ongoing harassment and push-out of older employees	Henson did not allege constructive discharge in the charge; the discrete act occurred after the charge and was not reasonably related	Judgment on the pleadings affirmed — constructive-discharge claim was not administratively exhausted
Whether the reasonable-relation theory extends to post-charge discrete acts (doctrinal question)	Henson urged that subsequent discrete acts reasonably related to charged conduct may be included	Union Pacific relied on precedent limiting reasonable-relation for later discrete acts	The court did not adopt the narrower Tenth Circuit view; but on the facts here held the constructive-discharge claim was not reasonably related to the charge
Whether evidence shows an age-based hostile work environment under the MHRA	Henson pointed to repeated comments, job reassignment, jokes, and other incidents as age-based harassment that altered employment conditions	Union Pacific argued many incidents were unrelated to age or not severe/pervasive enough	Summary judgment affirmed — record lacks sufficiently severe or pervasive age-based harassment to alter terms/conditions of employment

Key Cases Cited

Filla v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 336 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard for evaluating fraudulent joinder; resolve ambiguities for plaintiff)
Iowa Pub. Serv. Co. v. Med. Bow Coal Co., 556 F.2d 400 (8th Cir. 1977) (if state law clearly bars claim against resident defendant, joinder is fraudulent)
Bradley v. Ray, 904 S.W.2d 302 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995) (individual aiding-and-abetting requires substantial assistance or encouragement)
Reed v. McDonald’s Corp., 363 S.W.3d 134 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012) (individual liability under MHRA requires direct oversight or active involvement)
Parisi v. Boeing Co., 400 F.3d 583 (8th Cir. 2005) (reasonable-relation doctrine limits what administrative charges exhaust)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (distinction between discrete acts and continuing violations in charge-exhaustion context)
Green v. Brennan, 136 S. Ct. 1769 (2016) (constructive discharge treated like actual discharge for accrual and related analyses)
Wallingsford v. City of Maplewood, 287 S.W.3d 682 (Mo. 2009) (constructive discharge occurs when conditions are made intolerable)
Faibisch v. Univ. of Minn., 304 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 2002) (administrative charges must provide particularized facts; conclusory or checked boxes are insufficient)