Wierman v. Casey's General Stores
638 F.3d 984
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Wierman, pregnant with August due date, worked as Casey's store manager in Missouri then was terminated May 6, 2008; termination tied to video evidence of unauthorized consumption of bakery items and fountain drinks without payment or proper receipts.
- Casey's alleged legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons: attendance/tardiness violations, failure to ring up items or pay in advance, failure to place receipts in shift-audit envelopes, and unauthorized removal of company property.
- Casey's HR advised Wierman to complete FMLA paperwork; she did not complete paperwork before termination.
- Shortly before termination, Johnson reviewed surveillance video and identified violations; prior area supervisors had not disciplined similar conduct.
- Wierman sought relief under Title VII (pregnancy discrimination), FMLA retaliation, and MHRA; district court granted summary judgment to Casey's on all claims except MHRA remand, which this court partially remands for diversity analysis.
- Court remands MHRA claim for trial while affirming summary judgment on Title VII and FMLA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie pregnancy discrimination established? | Wierman asserts temporal proximity and comparators show discrimination. | Casey's argues legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons; no sufficient comparator evidence. | No genuine pretext; no sufficient comparators; Title VII claim affirmed (summary judgment for Casey's) |
| Pretext evidence under McDonnell Douglas for Title VII? | Shifting explanations and timing suggest pretext for discrimination. | Reasons (policy violations) consistent; discrepancies do not prove pretext. | No reasonable jury could find pretext; Title VII affirmed |
| FMLA retaliation prima facie and pretext? | Termination occurred soon after notice of FMLA paperwork deadline; causation shown. | Termination based on policy violations; proximity is not enough to show pretext. | FMLA retaliation claim fails; summary judgment affirmed |
| MHRA claims and contributing factor standard? | Pregnancy contributed to termination under MHRA; not required to be sole factor. | MHRA standard aligns with state law; federal rulings not controlling. | MHRA claim remanded for trial due to contributing-factor analysis |
| Diversity jurisdiction and remand scope for MHRA claim? | Diversity supports remand of MHRA claim; case remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (credibility and weighing of evidence are jury functions)
- Sprenger v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of Des Moines, 253 F.3d 1106 (8th Cir. 2001) (temporal proximity can establish prima facie case of discrimination (barely so))
- Smith v. Allen Health Sys., Inc., 302 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2002) (proximity and causation in discrimination cases)
- Trans States Airlines, Inc., 462 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2006) (discrepancies in explanations not necessarily pretext)
- McCullough v. Univ. of Ark. for Med. Sciences, 559 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2009) (pretext requires evidence of discriminatory motive beyond good-faith belief)
- Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. banc 2007) (MHRA contributing-factor standard surpasses federal standard in some contexts)