Rhonda Button v. Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern, 963 F.3d 824

Rhonda Button was an Operations Supervisor at CP’s Kansas City desk since 2002 and was the only woman assigned there; a manager (Heidi Peterson) made a remark that the desk “wasn’t a place for a woman.”
CP implemented a 2016 reduction-in-force (RIF) to eliminate the Missouri desk and cut 6 of 16 Operations Supervisor positions; a spreadsheet rated supervisors on multi-year PMP scores, efficiency tests, discipline, attendance, and subjective category ratings.
Button’s metrics: 2015 PMP = 100, highest failure rate on efficiency tests, two disciplines in two years, and multiple “Partially Achieves” subjective ratings; the RIF team concluded she lacked experience with certain territories and communication systems.
Button took FMLA leave from Feb. 5–Mar. 4, 2016 and was on leave when the RIF decisions were made; she was notified of termination on Mar. 31, 2016 and the realignment took effect in April.
Button sued under the Missouri Human Rights Act (sex discrimination) and the FMLA (retaliation); the district court granted summary judgment to CP; Button appealed arguing (1) district court relied on sham affidavits, (2) gender discrimination, and (3) FMLA discrimination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sham affidavits	Marthe’s and Perkins’s affidavits contradicted their depositions and should be disregarded	Affidavits only elaborated on deposition testimony and mirrored spreadsheet evidence; not shams	Affidavits were not sham and could be considered by the district court
MHRA sex discrimination	Peterson’s “not a place for a woman” remark plus RIF outcome show gender was a contributing factor	RIF was legitimate, based on objective and subjective metrics; Peterson was not a decisionmaker and her remark isn’t tied to the RIF decision	Summary judgment affirmed: no genuine dispute that gender contributed to termination
FMLA discrimination	Termination while on FMLA leave (plus a recent commendation and alleged pattern) shows retaliation	CP proffered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason: Button was among the least qualified; other FMLA users retained; no pattern of FMLA hostility	Summary judgment affirmed: plaintiff failed to show CP’s RIF reason was pretext for FMLA retaliation

Bass v. City of Sioux Falls, 232 F.3d 615 (8th Cir. 2000) (sham-affidavit doctrine and when affidavits may be disregarded)
Schierhoff v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, L.P., 444 F.3d 961 (8th Cir. 2006) (direct-evidence rule; nondecisionmaker statements)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (definition of direct evidence and motivating-bias analysis)
Denn v. CSL Plasma, Inc., 816 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2016) (MHRA contributing-factor standard and circumstantial proof)
Bashara v. Black Hills Corp., 26 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 1994) (what constitutes a legitimate RIF plan)
Rahlf v. Mo-Tech Corp., 642 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 2011) (RIF legitimacy and reliance on objective measures)
Wierman v. Casey’s Gen. Stores, 638 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (FMLA prima facie and pretext evidence examples)
Malloy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 756 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment standard for FMLA-motivated terminations)