Main v. Ozark Health, Inc.

Citation959 F.3d 319
Decision Date11 May 2020
Docket NumberNo. 19-1393,19-1393
Parties Sheila MAIN, Plaintiff - Appellant v. OZARK HEALTH, INC., Defendant - Appellee
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

John D. Coulter, McMath & Woods, Little Rock, AR, Allen Cole Dobson, Baxter & Jewell, Little Rock, AR, Carolyn Wheeler, Katz & Marshall, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff - Appellant.

William Stuart Jackson, General Counsel, Gary D. Marts, Jr., Regina A. Young, Wright & Lindsey, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant - Appellee.

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.

Sheila Main brought this lawsuit against her former employer, Ozark Health, Inc. (Ozark), alleging age and sex discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 (ACRA). The district court1 granted summary judgment in favor of Ozark. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

I.

In October 2005, Ozark hired Main as the radiology manager for its medical center in Clinton, Arkansas. At the time, Main was fifty-one years old and had her bachelor's degree in radiologic technology, her master's degree in management, and over thirty years of experience as a radiologic technologist and manager. Main's duties as radiology manager included managing and scheduling personnel, managing the budget, working with the radiologists, administrating the Picture Archiving and Communication System, performing quality control, managing and renegotiating radiology department contracts, writing grants, and maintaining regulatory compliance. Main's non-managerial duties included performing mammographies

, filling in as an X-ray and CT scan technologist as needed, and handling equipment repairs.

In July 2012, Darrell Moore became Ozark's chief operating officer and Main's direct supervisor. In his first conversation with Main, Moore asked whether Main had a succession plan. Shortly thereafter, Moore asked Main if she thought Jamie Cates, a male employee who is twenty-two years younger than Main and who was working under Main's supervision at the time, would be a good replacement for her.

Moore asserted that, during his time as Main's supervisor, he received several complaints about Main's behavior from radiology staff members and heads of other departments. For example, he testified that, in 2013, Dawn Messer, a radiology staff member, complained to him that Main was bullying her to obtain her ultrasound certification.2 Also in 2013, an Ozark maintenance employee submitted a written complaint against Main, claiming that she made the following comments to him while he was installing cabinets in the radiology department: "[T]hose look like crap in there"; "I don[']t no [sic] see why it takes so long to install so few cabinets"; "I[']m sending Jerald[, the head of the maintenance department,] a nasty email"; and "Why does it take two people to do that little of work." Moore spoke to Main about the maintenance employee's complaint. He explained to her that, while he was "very appreciative of [the] customer service" Main provided to her patients, Moore expected her to treat all persons, including her fellow employees, in that same manner.

Moore also testified that, as Main's supervisor, he experienced issues with Main's performance. He testified that two local clinics complained to him that they were not receiving or were not able to access reports from the radiology department. Moore noted, however, that Main resolved the issues after he spoke to her about them. Moore also testified that Main failed to complete certain tasks he had given her, such as providing him with benchmarking information, expanding ultrasound coverage, and cross-training radiology staff. Despite these complaints and performance concerns, Moore provided Main with positive end-of-year performance evaluations for 2012, 2013, and 2014.

On April 15, 2015, Brian Price, a representative from athenahealth, Inc. (Athena), held a meeting at Ozark's medical center to demonstrate Athena's products to Ozark. Main and Moore were both present at the meeting. During the meeting, Main asked Price several questions about how Athena's program could be used in the radiology department. Moore testified that he considered Main's questions at the meeting to be patronizing and inappropriate. He explained that every time Price responded to one of Main's questions, Main would rebut his answer, sometimes by interrupting him. Similarly, Jason Markle, Ozark's head of information technology, testified that Main's questions made the meeting attendees uncomfortable and that he observed Main repeatedly roll her eyes at Price's responses to her questions. After the meeting, Main sent Price an email to ask follow-up questions about Athena's products. At the end of her email, Main stated, "PS: we are Radiologic Technologists not Radiology Technicians. You might want to pass that on." Moore, who was copied on the email, testified that he found the end of Main's email to be condescending.

On June 3, 2015, Moore met with Main and informed her that he wanted a change in management and to go in a "different direction." Moore offered Main the options of either retiring or being terminated. He added that, if Main announced her retirement that day, Ozark would potentially allow her to perform as-needed work in the radiology department. Main refused to retire and was terminated that day. Main was sixty-one years old at the time. Immediately thereafter, Cates assumed Main's responsibilities. A few months later, Cates officially replaced Main as Ozark's radiology manager.

Following her termination, Main filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After the EEOC issued a dismissal and notice of rights letter, Main filed this action in the district court asserting the same claims as asserted in her EEOC complaint: that Ozark had terminated her employment based on her age and sex, in violation of the ADEA, Title VII, and the ACRA.3

Ozark moved for summary judgment on all claims, arguing that it had terminated Main for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason—specifically, Main's history of rude and insubordinate behavior that culminated with the Athena meeting. In response, Main argued that Ozark's asserted reason for her termination was mere pretext for age and sex discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Ozark, finding that Main failed to present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Moore honestly believed that Main was rude and inappropriate at the Athena meeting. In addition, the district court found that Main must do more than discredit Ozark's reason for termination; she must also demonstrate that the circumstances permit a reasonable inference of discriminatory animus. This appeal follows.

II.

We "review[ ] de novo a grant of summary judgment," Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc), "viewing the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to [Main], the nonmoving party." Kirkeberg v. Canadian Pac. Ry., 619 F.3d 898, 903 (8th Cir. 2010). "We will affirm if ‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ " Lindeman v. St. Luke's Hosp. of Kan. City, 899 F.3d 603, 605 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ). Main argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Ozark because she offered evidence demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ozark's proffered reason for Main's termination is mere pretext for intentional discrimination.

Title VII and the ACRA prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on sex, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) ; Ark. Code Ann. § 16-123-107, and the ADEA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on age, see 29 U.S.C. § 623. A plaintiff alleging discrimination under these statutes may survive an employer's motion for summary judgment by producing either direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination. See Gibson v. Am. Greetings Corp., 670 F.3d 844, 855-56 (8th Cir. 2012) (noting plaintiff can present direct or circumstantial evidence of age discrimination to survive motion for summary judgment on ADEA claim); McCullough v. Univ. of Ark. for Med. Scis., 559 F.3d 855, 860 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting that Title VII and ACRA claims are "governed by the same standards," and that a plaintiff can present direct or circumstantial evidence of sex discrimination to survive motion for summary judgment on such claims). Where, as here, the plaintiff relies on circumstantial evidence only, she must proceed under the three-step burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). See Gibson, 670 F.3d at 853-56 (analyzing Title VII, ACRA, and ADEA discrimination claims under the McDonnell Douglas framework).

At step one of the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc., 169 F.3d 1131, 1134-35 (8th Cir. 1999) (en banc). In its motion for summary judgment, Ozark conceded that Main sufficiently alleged a prima facie case of age and sex discrimination, and it does not argue otherwise on appeal. Therefore, we assume without deciding that Main satisfied her burden at step one.

At step two, the burden shifts to Ozark to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Main's termination. See St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506-07, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993). Ozark satisfied this burden by presenting evidence that Moore, the decisionmaker, terminated Main because of "[h]er rudeness and insubordination [which] culminated in a meeting with Athena Health, ... in which she behaved abominably." R....

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Willson v. City of Bel-Nor
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • July 6, 2020
    ...Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)." Main v. Ozark Health, Inc., 959 F.3d 319, 327 (8th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up; quoted case omitted).In passing on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the facts in the light m......
  • Snyder v. The Neb. Med. Ctr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • August 10, 2021
    ... ... speculation.” Turner v. XTO Energy, Inc. , 989 ... F.3d 625, 627 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting Sprenger v. Fed ... Smith v. Allen Health Sys., Inc. , 302 F.3d 827, 834 ... (8th Cir. 2002)). “A plaintiff ... termination. See Main v. Ozark Health, Inc. , 959 ... F.3d 319, 325 (8th Cir. 2020) (“To ... ...
  • Sedlmayr v. United States, 4:18-CV-1826 RLW
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • November 12, 2020
    ...the Supreme Court decried in Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)." Main v. Ozark Health, Inc., 959 F.3d 319, 327 (8th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up; quoted case omitted). With this standard in mind, the Court accepts the following facts as true for pu......
  • Setchfield v. St. Charles Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • May 5, 2023
    ... ... Anderson v. Liberty ... Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Only disputes ... over facts that might ... v. Zenith ... Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).” Main ... v. Ozark Health, Inc., 959 F.3d 319, 327 (8th Cir. 2020) ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Summary Judgment Practice and Procedure
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Employment Discrimination Cases. Volume 1-2 Volume 2 - Practice
    • May 1, 2023
    ...make it virtually impossible for plaintiff employees to defeat motions for summary judgment. For example, in Main v. Ozark Health, Inc ., 959 F.3d 319 (8th Cir. 2020), Sheila Main, a former employee of Ozark Health, attempted to demonstrate that her employer’s articulated reason for termina......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT