Rochelle Garrison v. Dolgencorp, LLC
939 F.3d 937
8th Cir.2019Background
- Garrison was a lead sales associate and one of four store "key holders" at Dollar General in Missouri and suffers from anxiety, migraines, and depression.
- She repeatedly asked her supervisor Bell (by text and in person) about taking a leave of absence for her worsening medical condition.
- Bell told her no leave was available, said she should read the employee handbook, and warned she could lose key-holder or full-time status if she missed shifts.
- After missing a shift for an ER visit, Garrison quit, and Dollar General promptly replaced her.
- Garrison sued under the ADA, the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), and the FMLA for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, interference, and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it allowed Garrison’s ADA reasonable-accommodation claim to proceed but upheld dismissal of her retaliation, constructive-discharge/disability, MHRA (to the extent tied to adverse action), and FMLA-interference claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA reasonable accommodation: did employee request an accommodation and did employer fail to engage in an interactive process? | Garrison repeatedly asked for a leave of absence and told Bell about her disabling conditions; that made Dollar General aware and triggered an obligation to engage the interactive process. | Dollar General (via Bell) denied leave, told her to read the handbook, and did not have notice of an ADA accommodation request. | Reversed: a reasonable jury could find Garrison put employer on notice, employer failed to meaningfully engage, and a reasonable accommodation might have been possible. |
| Retaliation under ADA/MHRA/FMLA: did employer take an adverse employment action causally related to protected activity? | Bell spread rumors and warned Garrison she could lose key-holder/full-time status after leave inquiries, constituting adverse actions. | Rumors and warnings were minor/slights or routine consequences for absences, not materially adverse. | Affirmed: rumors and warnings were not materially adverse and not actionable retaliation. |
| Disability discrimination via constructive discharge: did employer create intolerable conditions forcing resignation? | Garrison was effectively forced to quit because Dollar General refused leave and threatened role/status loss. | Any decision to quit was due to her worsening medical condition, not intolerable employer conduct; threats were not so extreme as to compel resignation. | Affirmed: conditions were not objectively intolerable; no constructive discharge. |
| FMLA interference/denial: did employer deny or interfere with FMLA leave? | Bell told Garrison leave was unavailable and discouraged her, causing denial of FMLA rights. | Garrison failed to follow Dollar General’s required notice procedure (contacting Matrix Absence Management), so she forfeited FMLA rights; Bell’s statements did not create "unusual circumstances" excusing noncompliance. | Affirmed: failure to follow employer’s procedural requirements precluded FMLA claim; supervisor’s statements did not excuse noncompliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 188 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 1999) (interactive-process and reasonable-accommodation framework)
- Kowitz v. Trinity Health, 839 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. 2016) (employer knowledge and inquiry language not limited to magic words)
- EEOC v. Convergys Customer Mgmt. Grp., Inc., 491 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2007) (employee must make employer aware of need for accommodation)
- Cravens v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan. City, 214 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2000) (employer must provide active assistance in interactive process)
- Faidley v. United Parcel Serv. of Am., Inc., 889 F.3d 933 (8th Cir. 2018) (employer need not provide employee’s preferred accommodation)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation requires materially adverse action that would dissuade a reasonable worker)
- Green v. Brennan, 136 S. Ct. 1769 (2016) (standard for constructive discharge)