Young v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 October 1998
• Docket Number: No. 98-1254,WARNER-JENKINSON,98-1254
• Citation: 152 F.3d 1018
• Parties: 8 A.D. Cases 887, 13 NDLR P 130 Robert YOUNG, Appellant, v.COMPANY, INC., Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 1018

152 F.3d 1018

8 A.D. Cases 887, 13 NDLR P 130

Robert YOUNG, Appellant, v. WARNER-JENKINSON COMPANY, INC., Appellee.

No. 98-1254.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 1998.

Decided Aug. 24, 1998.

Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing

En Banc Denied Oct. 1, 1998.

Robert J. Radice, St. Louis, MO, argued (John M. Horas and Kenneth E. Fleischmann, on the brief), for appellant.

John B. Renick, St. Louis, MO, argued (James N. Foster, Jr. and Stephen B. Maule, on the brief), for appellee.

Before WOLLMAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and DOTY, ¹ District Judge.

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Robert Young appeals from the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. (Warner-Jenkinson). Young alleges that Warner-Jenkinson terminated him because of his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990(ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (1995 & Supp.1998), and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 213.010-213.137 (1996 & Supp.1998). We reverse and remand for further proceedings. ²

I.

Viewed in the light most favorable to Young, the record reveals the following facts. Young, an African-American male, began working as a temporary full-time employee in the maintenance department of Warner-Jenkinson's St. Louis plant on November 1, 1993. Warner-Jenkinson estimated that Young's employment would last approximately six months. On March 17, 1994, Young suffered a severe work-related injury that ultimately led to the amputation of three-quarters of his left foot. Following his injury, Young underwent extensive physical rehabilitation and was unable to work for a substantial period of time. He was able to return to work with the aid of a prosthetic device on October 31, 1994, and was subsequently given permission to work without restrictions on March 28, 1995.

On December 8, 1995, Ed Crumer, Warner-Jenkinson's manager of employee relations, met with Young and informed him of the company's decision to terminate his employment. During the course of this meeting, Crumer told Young that his job performance had been deficient in numerous respects. Crumer also made reference to a memorandum authored by Dan Lauff, Warner-Jenkinson's plant manager, which purportedly detailed Young's performance deficiencies. Four days later, Crumer provided Young with a condensed version of Lauff's memorandum, which read, in pertinent part:

* You missed 30.5 hours since reporting to the Dispersion area on August 19, 1995. The most recent eight (8) hour occurrence was the result of a legal incarceration.

* You were responsible for a significant product spill during the week of November 27, 1995, that was a result of simple carelessness. The incident occurred when you took possession of a material mover while it was being used to elevate a tank and fill a drum. The incident demonstrated a lack of attention to the job.

* You did not work well with the experienced and very qualified full Grade 3 operator that you were assigned to work with.

Appellant's Appendix (A.A.) at 252.

Shortly after his dismissal, Young filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR) alleging that Warner-Jenkinson had discriminated against him on account of his disability and his race. John Shelton, a human rights officer with the MCHR's Early Resolution Unit, contacted Warner-Jenkinson in an attempt to resolve the dispute through an early resolution process. In response to this inquiry, Shelton received a letter from Warner-Jenkinson's parent company, Universal Foods Corporation. The letter stated that Young had been terminated not because of performance deficiencies but because of a lack of available work. The letter confirmed that Crumer had discussed certain deficiencies with Young at the time of his dismissal, but maintained that these deficiencies were unrelated to the ultimate decision to terminate. See id. at 276-77. ³

Young then initiated the present action, alleging that Warner-Jenkinson had discriminated against him on the basis of his disability in violation of the ADA and the MHRA. Young further alleged that Warner-Jenkinson had discriminated against him on the basis of his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Finally, Young claimed that Warner-Jenkinson violated Mo.Rev.Stat. § 287.780 by retaliating against him for filing and pursuing a workers' compensation claim. The district court entered summary judgment for Warner-Jenkinson with respect to all claims, and Young now appeals.

II.

Young has apparently abandoned his race discrimination and retaliation claims. Thus, the sole issue on appeal is whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to Warner-Jenkinson on Young's ADA claim. ⁴ Under the ADA, it is unlawful for an employer to "discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a); see also Downs v. Hawkeye Health Services, Inc., 148 F.3d 948, 949-51 (8th Cir.1998); Moore v. Payless Shoe Source, Inc., 139 F.3d 1210, 1212 (8th Cir.1998). A "qualified individual with a disability" is "an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires." 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8).

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards as those employed by the district court. See Rose-Maston v. NME Hosp., Inc., 133 F.3d 1104, 1107 (8th Cir.1998). Summary judgment is proper if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). While a party moving for summary judgment carries the burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, a nonmoving party may not rest upon mere denials or allegations, but must instead set forth specific facts sufficient to raise a genuine issue for trial. See Rose-Maston, 133 F.3d at 1107; Thomas v. Runyon, 108 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir.1997); Ruby v. Springfield R-12 Pub. Sch. Dist., 76 F.3d 909, 911 (8th Cir.1996).

Because Young has not put forth direct evidence of discrimination, his ADA claim is analyzed under the burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas and its progeny. See St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506-07, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993); United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-15, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983); Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-56, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Under this framework, a discrimination plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Christopher v. Adam's Mark Hotels, 137 F.3d 1069, 1071 (8th Cir.1998). If he satisfies this initial burden, a rebuttable presumption of discrimination arises, and the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the presumption by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. See Rose-Maston, 133 F.3d at 1107. Once the defendant has advanced a nondiscriminatory reason, the presumption disappears and the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the employer's proffered reason is merely a pretext for intentional discrimination. See id. The plaintiff retains at all times the ultimate burden of proving that the adverse employment action was motivated by intentional discrimination. See id. at 1107-08.

In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, Young must establish the following: (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is qualified to perform the essential functions of his job, with or without accommodation; and (3) he suffered an adverse employment action under circumstances from which an inference of unlawful discrimination arises. See Mathews, 143 F.3d at 1164; Christopher, 137 F.3d at 1072. Warner-Jenkinson concedes that Young has satisfied the first two elements, but contends that Young has presented no evidence to satisfy the third. Specifically, Warner-Jenkinson argues that because Young has produced no evidence indicating that he was treated any differently than anyone else, he has not demonstrated circumstances from which the existence of unlawful discrimination may be inferred.

We disagree. In Price v. S-B Power Tool, 75 F.3d 362, 365 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 274, 136 L.Ed.2d 197 (1996), we noted that "[a]n inference of discrimination may be raised by evidence that a plaintiff was replaced by or treated less favorably than similarly situated employees who are not in the plaintiff's protected class." It does not follow, however, that evidence of disparate treatment is the exclusive means by which a plaintiff may establish an inference of discrimination. See Miners v. Cargill Communications, Inc., 113 F.3d 820, 824 n. 7 (8th Cir.1997), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 441, 139 L.Ed.2d 378 (1997) ("[a]lthough ... disparate treatment commonly gives rise to an inference of discrimination, it cannot be the only means of demonstrating unlawful discrimination"). In McDonnell Douglas, the Supreme Court recognized that the prima facie case will necessarily vary in different factual situations. 411 U.S. at 802 n. 13, 93 S.Ct. 1817. We have recognized, as well, that the proof necessary to establish a prima facie case in discrimination cases is "not inflexible" and "varies somewhat with the specific facts of each case." Hindman v. Transkrit Corp., 145 F.3d 986, 990-91 (8th Cir.1998). ⁵

Furthermore, it is well-established that the threshold of proof necessary to...