Sandra Lovelace v. Washington Univ. School of Med
931 F.3d 698
8th Cir.2019Background
- Sandra Lovelace worked as a Medical Assistant for Washington University School of Medicine/Barnes Jewish Hospital from 2003 until termination on August 5, 2015; she took FMLA leave for back surgery in early 2015 and returned March 4, 2015 with light-duty accommodations.
- After returning she was reassigned to "floating" positions; multiple supervisors and clinicians later reported performance and conduct concerns, including refusal to perform tasks and an alleged racially tinged comment regarding coworker Angela Butcher.
- Lovelace complained to HR that supervisors had labeled her a racist and that she was being harassed over post-surgery work restrictions; HR investigated and found no retaliation.
- On July 31, 2015 Lovelace became upset during a performance follow-up meeting, asked to leave, and (per some witnesses) had an outburst toward supervisor Dee Brinkley; management placed her on administrative leave and terminated her after an internal review.
- Lovelace sued for FMLA retaliation/discrimination and MHRA retaliation (race and disability); the district court granted summary judgment for employers, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FMLA discrimination (retaliation) — whether termination was motivated by protected leave | Lovelace: timing and alleged supervisor animus show termination was motivated by her FMLA leave; supervisors created pretextual performance issues | Employers: long gap between leave and termination, independent performance and conduct complaints, legitimate reason (July 31 outburst) | Affirmed for defendants — no causal link; temporal gap and intervening unprotected conduct defeat claim |
| MHRA retaliation — race (complaint to HR about being labeled racist) | Lovelace: complaining to HR about the "Butcher" comment constituted opposition to racial discrimination and prompted retaliation | Employers: asking whether she made a race-related comment is not discrimination "because of race"; accusing someone of racism does not itself equal race-based discrimination under MHRA | Affirmed for defendants — no reasonable good-faith basis to believe she opposed race-based discrimination under MHRA |
| MHRA retaliation — disability (complaints about restrictions after surgery) | Lovelace: complained to HR about harassment tied to her post-surgery restrictions, so retaliation protected | Employers: temporary work restrictions alone are not disability under relevant precedent; Lovelace admitted she was not disabled | Affirmed for defendants — no reasonable good-faith belief of disability discrimination; claim fails |
| Loss of consortium (spousal derivative claim) | Stephen Lovelace: derivative claim from Sandra’s alleged retaliatory discharge | Employers: derivative claim fails because underlying claims fail | Affirmed dismissal — derivative claim dismissed along with underlying claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Ebersole v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., 758 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment standard and timing/causation in employment discrimination cases)
- Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers, Inc., 691 F.3d 996 (8th Cir. 2012) (FMLA discrimination/retaliation framework and McDonnell Douglas application)
- Jackson v. City of Hot Springs, 751 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2014) (characterizing FMLA retaliation as discrimination claim)
- Kipp v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 280 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2002) (causation/inference of discriminatory motive)
- Sisk v. Picture People, Inc., 669 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2012) (temporal proximity alone often insufficient to establish causation)
- Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc., 169 F.3d 1131 (8th Cir. en banc 1999) (protected opposition does not shield from discipline for disruptive or rule-violating conduct)
- Samuels v. Kansas City Mo. Sch. Dist., 437 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 2006) (temporary work restrictions insufficient by themselves to establish disability under federal law)
- McCrainey v. Kansas City Mo. Sch. Dist., 337 S.W.3d 746 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011) (elements of MHRA retaliation; need reasonable good-faith belief in discrimination claim)
- Soto v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 502 S.W.3d 38 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016) (reasonable good-faith belief standard for MHRA retaliation)