Thomas Lissick v. Andersen Corporation, 996 F.3d 876

Background

Andersen fired maintenance employee Thomas Lissick on Jan. 11, 2018, after concluding he violated the company’s lock-out/tag-out (LOTO) safety protocol for a third time (incident observed Jan. 3, 2018 after two prior violations).
Prior to termination, Lissick had reported workplace issues: Sept. 6, 2017 sexual-harassment-related complaints (inappropriate texts and nicknames), Sept. 13, 2017 report of falsified eye-wash inspection records, and an April 2017 request/use of intermittent FMLA leave to care for his father.
Andersen investigated Lissick’s Jan. 3 conduct, HR concluded he committed a third LOTO violation, and multiple supervisors signed termination paperwork following HR’s recommendation.
Lissick sued Andersen asserting eight claims; he voluntarily dismissed four. The district court granted summary judgment for Andersen on the remaining four claims (Minnesota Whistleblower Act retaliation; MHRA hostile-work-environment; MHRA retaliation for reporting sexual harassment; FMLA retaliation).
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed summary judgment, finding Lissick failed to establish prima facie causation (and in the hostile-environment claim, also failed the severe-or-pervasive element and to show employer inaction).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination violated the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (retaliation for Sept. 6 & Sept. 13 reports)	Lissick says his protected reports were followed by termination, so causation is shown (temporal proximity).	Andersen says termination was for repeated LOTO violations; temporal gap (~4 months) and lack of other evidence defeats causation.	Affirmed for Andersen — plaintiff failed to show causation; timing too attenuated and no additional circumstantial evidence.
Whether coworkers’ conduct created an actionable hostile work environment under the MHRA	Lissick contends inappropriate texts and nicknames ("lipstick," "love muscle") were severe or pervasive.	Andersen says isolated/off-person incidents, HR promptly investigated and disciplined, so not severe/pervasive and employer remedied.	Affirmed for Andersen — conduct was not severe or pervasive, and employer took timely action.
Whether Andersen retaliated under the MHRA for reporting sexual harassment	Lissick relies on temporal proximity between his complaints (Sept./Oct. 2017) and termination (Jan. 2018) to show causation.	Andersen points to legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (LOTO violations) and says timing alone is insufficient.	Affirmed for Andersen — temporal gap (3–4 months) too attenuated; no other evidence of discriminatory motive.
Whether Andersen retaliated in violation of the FMLA	Lissick argues decisionmakers knew of his FMLA use and termination occurred while he was on intermittent leave, so timing shows causation.	Andersen notes Lissick’s FMLA request was in April 2017 (≈9 months before firing) and termination followed documented LOTO violations.	Affirmed for Andersen — timing is not "very close" and plaintiff presented no other evidence of causation.

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for circumstantial discrimination/retaliation claims)
Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., 330 N.W.2d 428 (Minn. 1983) (elements to establish prima facie retaliatory discharge under MN Whistleblower Act)
Kenneh v. Homeward Bound, Inc., 944 N.W.2d 222 (Minn. 2020) (severe-or-pervasive standard for hostile-work-environment claims)
Cummings v. Koehnen, 568 N.W.2d 418 (Minn. 1997) (employer liability requires knowledge and failure to take timely corrective action)
Hite v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 446 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2006) (temporal proximity must be "very close" for FMLA causation based on timing alone)
Ebersole v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., 758 F.3d 917 (8th Cir. 2014) (one- or two-month gap generally insufficient to establish causation by timing alone)
Sisk v. Picture People, Inc., 669 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2012) (relevant date for FMLA timing analysis is when employer knew of leave, not when leave ended)