Thomas Denn v. CSL Plasma, 816 F.3d 1027

Denn was an assistant center manager at CSL Plasma’s Kansas City center and received several verbal and written warnings from supervisors for performance deficiencies and revealing confidential information.
New manager Rebecca Heatherman disciplined Denn repeatedly (final written warning issued Aug. 21, 2012); Denn complained of sex discrimination to HR on Aug. 17, 2012 and HR investigated, finding no discrimination.
On Oct. 31, 2012 a subordinate reported an alleged assault; Denn reviewed video but did not report the incident to HR or his manager until Nov. 7, violating CSL’s policy requiring immediate reporting.
CSL terminated Denn on Nov. 8, 2012; termination paperwork cited his failure to report the incident and prior corrective actions. Decisionmakers included Heatherman and HR personnel.
Denn sued under the Missouri Human Rights Act alleging sex discrimination (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.055) and retaliation for his internal complaint (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.070); the district court granted CSL summary judgment and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Denn’s firing was sex discrimination under the MHRA	Denn: evidence (comparisons to female coworkers, post-termination comment, other male complaints) shows sex was a contributing factor	CSL: documented performance problems and policy violations (failure to report); proffered non-sex reasons fully explain discipline and termination	Held for CSL — no genuine fact issue that sex was a contributing factor; evidence insufficient to show discriminatory motive
Whether CSL retaliated for Denn’s Aug. 17 complaint	Denn: temporal proximity between complaint and final warning/termination supports causation	CSL: final warning premised on a months-long disciplinary process begun before complaint; long gap and independent performance basis for termination	Held for CSL — timing and record do not show complaint was a contributing factor to adverse actions
Admissibility and probative value of coworker statements and affidavits (Todd, Robinson)	Denn: coworker affidavits and Robinson’s remark support inference of discrimination	CSL: many statements lack personal knowledge or connection to decisionmakers; Robinson was not involved in termination decision	Held for CSL — portions of affidavits excluded as lacking personal knowledge; Robinson’s comment not tied to decisionmakers and insufficient to create a fact issue

Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. 2007) (defines MHRA "contributing factor" standard)
Templemire v. W & M Welding, Inc., 433 S.W.3d 371 (Mo. 2014) (Missouri rejected McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting for MHRA claims)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (federal burden-shifting framework contrasted with Missouri law)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard regarding genuine issues of material fact)
Wallace v. DTG Operations, Inc., 563 F.3d 357 (8th Cir. 2009) (MHRA retaliation requires complaint to be a contributing factor)
Kipp v. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 280 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2002) (timing alone often insufficient to establish retaliation)
Brunsting v. Lutsen Mountains Corp., 601 F.3d 813 (8th Cir. 2010) ("mere scintilla" of evidence insufficient to defeat summary judgment)