Rebecca Shirrell v. St. Francis Medical Center
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12260
8th Cir.2015Background
- Shirrell, Jewish, was employed as a nurse by St. Francis from 1995, briefly left, then rehired in 2001 and remained until discharge in 2012.
- In early 2012, Miller—a non-Jewish co-worker—made a derogatory remark about the Jewish faith by using the phrase to describe bargaining for a camper; Shirrell reported it to her supervisor.
- St. Francis issued reminders about harassment and posted policy; Shirrell later reported hostility and reduced interaction with coworkers on weekend shifts.
- Miller was promoted to Nurse Manager in April 2012; two patient complaints against Shirrell were investigated as unprofessional conduct, leading to disciplinary points.
- Shirrell accumulated 12 disciplinary points by 12-month period, triggering discharge under the hospital’s Corrective Action Policy; the decision involved Salter, with HR consulted.
- Shirrell filed EEOC/MCHR charges; district court granted summary judgment to St. Francis and Miller; Shirrell appeals arguing MHRA and Title VII claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MHRA retaliation causation | Shirrell contends protected activity caused discharge. | Hospital policy and points-based discharge independent of complaint. | No causal link; discharge per policy; granted summary judgment. |
| MHRA religious discrimination | Discharge biased against religion as contributing factor. | Discharge based on points under policy, not religion. | No contributing-factor evidence; policy-driven discharge; no MHRA discrimination. |
| Title VII religious discrimination | Religion contributed to discharge. | Discharge grounded in 12-point policy with no bias against religion. | No inference of discrimination; policy-based termination; no Title VII claim. |
| Title VII retaliation | Protected activity (complaints) caused adverse action. | Discharge for disciplinary points, independent of complaints. | No but-for causation; safer reliance on policy rationale; no Title VII retaliation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brannum v. Mo. Dept. of Corr., 518 F.3d 542 (8th Cir. 2008) (offhand remarks and isolated incidents do not prove discrimination)
- Daugherty v. City of Md. Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. 2007) (court analyzes Missouri MHRA framework and causation)
- Medley v. Valentine Radford Commc’ns, Inc., 173 S.W.3d 315 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005) (causation timing alone insufficient for retaliation claim)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (U.S. 2013) (but-for causation required for certain retaliation claims)
- Gibson v. Am. Greetings Corp., 670 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2012) (calculates prima facie elements for religious discrimination)
- McCrainey v. Kan. City Mo. Sch. Dist., 337 S.W.3d 746 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011) (MHRA retaliation elements framework)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Hill v. Walker, 737 F.3d 1209 (8th Cir. 2013) (appellate guidance on grant of summary judgment in discrimination cases)