# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 36 73

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
San dr a Lov el ace; Ste ph en Lov el ace

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

W as hi ng to n Un iv ers it y

Sch oo l o f Med ic in e; Barn es -J ewis h Ho sp it al

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 6, 2 01 9 Fi le d: Ju ly 25, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , ARNOLD and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
SMI TH, Chi ef J ud ge

.

San d r a Lov el ace su ed he r em pl oyers, W as hi ng to n Uni ve rs it y Sch oo l of Med ic in e (WU SM) an d Barn e s J e w is h Hos pi ta l (BJ H), cl ai m in g th ey un la wfu ll y
te rm in at ed he r in ret al ia ti on for ex erci si ng he r rig ht s un de r th e Fam il y an d M ed ic al
Le a v e A c t (FM LA) an d th e Mi ss ou ri Hum an Ri gh ts Act (MHRA)

. Lov el ace’shu sb an d, St ep he n, al so su ed fo r lo ss of co ns or t i u m. Th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d 1

su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of W USM an d B JH. We affir m

. 2

I. Bac kg ro un d
W U SM em pl oyed Lov el ace as a Med ic al Ass is ta nt (MA) fro m Nov em be r 2003

to Aug us t 5, 20 15

. MAs as si st do c t o r s ’ cl in ic al te am s by pe rfo rm in g no n- m ed ic al

ta sk s su ch as sc he du li ng , an swe rin g ph on es , an d pl aci ng or de rs

. Lov el ace wor ke d fo r

on e do ct or ’s t e a m fro m Nov em be r 20 03 to 20 07 an d fo r a di ffer en t do ct or ’s te am fro m 20 07 to D e c e mb e r 2 01 4. Cl in ic al Nur se Man ag er Pau la Gol db erg , a BJ H

em pl oyee, be ga n su pe rv is in g Lov el ace in 20 07
, an d MA Su pe rv is or Dee Bri nk le y ,
a W USM em

pl oyee, al so be ga n su pe rv is in g he r in Sep te m be r 20 14

. In 20 09
, Lov el ace ap pl ie d fo r an d rece iv ed FMLA le av e wit ho ut in ci de nt

. Bo th Gol db erg an d Bri nk le y su pe rv is ed Lov el ace wh en th e in st an t d is pu te aro se

.

Beg in ni ng in Decem

be r 20 14
, Lov el ace st op pe d wor ki ng fo r a si ng le do ct or ’s

te am a n d st art ed “ flo at in g” am on g di ffer en t te am s. Lov el ace be ga n to ex pe rie nc e
pr ob le m s at wor k sh or tl y aft er th e swi tc h fro m a si ng le , per m an en t t eam pl acement
to se ve ral
, te m

po rary pl acements

. On Decem be r 10
, Lov el ace was as si gn ed to wor k wit h Dr. Dou gl as Adk in s’s te am

. Tha t sa m e da y , Lov el ace le ft earl y du e to ba ck pa in

. A f ew da y s la te r, aft er Lov el ace ha d no t ret ur ne d to wor k, Gol db erg e-m ai le d
Lov el ace ad vi si ng he r of th e po te nt ia l ne ed to co m pl et e FMLA pa pe rwo rk

. Lov el ace

su bs eq ue nt ly app li ed for

an d was gra nt ed FMLA le av e.

In it ia ll y , Lov el ace pl an ne d to ret ur n fro m le av e on Feb ru ary 9, 20 15

. Tha t ve ry

m or ni ng , ho wev er, Lov el ace e-m ai le d Gol db erg th at sh e wou ld no t be ret ur ni ng th at

The Hon or ab le Ro dn ey W

. Si pp el
, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

Lov el ace fil ed a m ot io n to su pp le m en t th e r e c or d aft er th e in st an t cas e ha d 2 be en ap pe al ed . W e d en y

th e m ot io n, fi nd in g t he reco rd be fo re u s s uf fic ie nt

.
-2

-da y

. Gol db erg fo rward ed Lov el ace’s e-m ai l to Bri nk le y. Th e two su pe rv is or s

ex pr es se d fru st rat io n a t th e ti m in g of Lov el ace’s no ti ce. In on e e-m ai l, Gol db erg

su gg es te d to Bri nk le y th at sh e co ul d hi re so m eo ne el se if Lov el ace di d no t ret ur n in

a m on th

.

Lov el ace ha d ba ck su rg ery on Feb ru ary 20. Tho ug h th e su rg ery was su cces sf ul
, Lov el ace req ui red cert ai n mi n o r w or k acco m m od at io ns , su ch as ta ki ng br eak s to
st an d, st ret ch
, or walk

. Lov el ace ret ur ne d to wor k on Mar ch 4, an d Bri nk le y as si gn ed he r ba ck to Dr. Adk in s’s te am

. Howev er, Dr. Adk in s’s te am ha d rece nt ly hi red an MA

n a med Ang el a Bu tc he r, an d on ce Bu tc he r was tra in ed
, Lov el ace be ga n “ flo at in g”

am on g t eam s ag ai n.

Fro m Apr il to Ju ly, Lov el ace wor ke d wit h Dr. Man ik Am in an d nu rs e Deb Orf.
Lov el ace ap pa ren tl y wor ke d well wit h Dr. Am in ’s te am in it ia ll y , bu t Orf so on be ga n
rep or ti ng is su es wit h Lov el ace. Orf st at ed th at Lov e l a c e “wo ul d refu se to do ta sk s,

so m et im es st at in g th at sh e di d no t kn ow ho w to do th e m.” St at em en t of Mat eri al
Fact s, Decl

. of Deb bi e Orf at 2, Lo vel ac e v. W as hi ng to n Uni v. Sc h. of

Med

. , No. 4: 15

-

cv -0 16 94 -RWS (E.D. Mo

. Apr

. 14
, 20 17 ), ECF No. 38 -1 0. Orf rep or te d he r co nc ern s
to Bri nk le y , ex pl ai ni ng “ th at it was m or e ch al le ng in g to ge t th e wor k do ne wit h Ms

. Lov el ace th an wit ho ut an MA at all ,” an d i n J ul y , sh e al so rep or te d h er co nc ern s to Gol db erg

. Id

. at 3.

Dur in g Lov el ace’s an nu al pe rfo rm an ce rev ie w in Apr il 20 15
, Gol db erg di sc us se d Lov el ace’s pe rfo rm an ce fo ll owi ng he r ret ur n fro m FMLA le av e. Gol db erg

m en ti on ed Lo v e l a c e ’s freq ue nt ab se nc es fro m he r wor k st at io n, bu t Lov el ace

rem in de d Gol db erg ab ou t he r ne ed to st an d, st ret ch
, an d walk po st

- s u r g e r y. Afte r th ei r m eet in g, Gol db erg in vi te d Lov el ace to rev is e he r ev al ua ti on to refl ect m or e
po si ti ve ly on he r pe rfo rm an ce, an d Lov el ace di d so

. Sh or tl y th erea fte r, Lov el ace m et wit h Bo b Barc zews k i
, W USM Dire ct or of Bu si ne ss Ope rat io ns , to co m pl ai n ab ou t

-3

-Gol db erg ’s tre at m en t of he r si nc e he r ret ur n. S h e a l s o m et wit h Hum an Res ou rces

Co ns ul ta nt San dr a Sl ed ge

.

In Ju ly 20 15
, Gol db erg an d Brin kl ey di sc us se d Lov el ace’s perf or m an ce with

se ve ral of th e ho sp it al ’s d oc to rs an d nu rs es

. Dur in g on e of th es e di sc us si on s, Dr. Bri an Van Tin e rep or te d th at Lov e l a c e , who is whi te , al le ge dl y co m m en te d th at a bl ack co wor ke r, Ang el a Bu tc he r, di d no t li ke wor ki ng wit h w h i te pe op le (“ th e Bu tc he r co m

m en t” ). On Ju ly 10, G old

be rg e- m ai le d Sl ed ge sum

m ar iz in g he r co nc ern s ab ou t Lov el ace. Gol db erg ex pr es se d he r op in io n th at Lov el ace was “ no t pr ep ared fo r th e de m an ds of th e [MA] po si ti on ,” as th e po si ti on ’s req ui rem en ts ha d “ ev ol ved” ove r ti m e. Res p. to St at em en t of Mat eri al Fact s, Ex. 7 at 1, Lo vel ac e v. W as hi ng to n Uni v. Sc h. of Med

. , No. 4: 15 -cv -0 16 94 -RWS (E.D. Mo

. Ju ne 9, 20 17 ), ECF No. 51 -8

. Sh e

ex pl ai ne d th at Lov el ace’s la ck of read in es s “ cau se [d ] he r to av oi d work
, pu sh wor k of f an d ha ve ot he rs do th e wor k” an d su gg es te d th at Lov e l a c e wou ld be m or e effe ct iv e in “ a le ss st res sf ul
, de m an di ng po si ti on in an ot he r de pa rtment.” Id

. Fi na ll y , Gol db erg no te d th at sh e ha d “ en ou gh to fir e [Lov el ace],” an d whi le sh e be li ev ed sh e

co ul d is su e a writ te n warn in g, sh e pl an ne d on is su in g a ve rb al w a r n i n g in st ead

. Id

. Sl ed ge ad vi se d “ po in ti ng ou t t o [Lov el ace] th e n eed s o f th e p os it io n a nd wher e sh e is an d is no t m eet in g” ex pe ct at io ns in st ead of su gg es ti ng a di ffer en t po si ti on , an d sh e

en co ur ag ed Gol db e r g t o co nt in ue acco m m od at in g Lov el ace’s “ ne ed fo r res t ti m es (wit hi n re as on ).” Id

.

On Ju ly 13
, Gol db erg , Bri nk le y , a nd Lov el ace m et to di sc us s Lov el ace’s
pe rfo rma n c e an d co nd uc t, an d Gol db erg sp eci fic al ly in qu ire d ab ou t th e Bu tc he r

co m m en t. Lov el ace d en ie d m ak in g th e co m m en t an d cl ai m ed he r su pe rv is or s were

accu si ng he r of raci sm

. At her dep os it io n, Love la ce ad m it te d th at no on e ha d cal le d h e r a raci st an d th at no “ ne ga ti ve co m m en ts [were ] ev er m ad e ab ou t [h er] rac e o r
et hn ic it y in th e wor kp la ce.” St at em en t of Mat eri al Fact s, Dep

. of San dr a Lov el ace at 20
, Lo vel ac e v. W

as hi ng to n Uni v. Sc h. of

Med

. , No. 4: 15 -cv -0 16 94 -RWS (E.D. Mo

.

-4

-Apr

. 14
, 20 17 ), EC F N o

. 3 8

- 1

. Whe n as ke d ho w sh e ha d be en a vi ct im of raci al

di sc riminat io n, s he ex pl ai ne d t ha t s he “ was lab el ed a raci st .” Id

. at 14

.

Fo ll owi ng th e Ju ly 1 3 m eet in g, Lov el ace m et wit h Sl ed ge to co m pl ai n ab ou t he r su pe rv is or s al le ge dl y la be li ng he r a raci st

. Sh e al so cl ai m ed he r su pe rv is or s were
ret al ia ti ng ag ai ns t he r fo r ta ki ng FMLA le av e. Sl ed ge be ga n in ve st ig at in g Lov el ace’s

c l ai m s, bu t Lov el ace, di ss at is fie d wit h Sl ed ge ’s rev ie w pr oc es s, pr es en te d h e r

co m pl ai nt s di rect ly to Hum an Res ou rces Man ag er Lean ne St ewart on Ju ly 21 an d 24

. St ewart ul ti m at el y

co nc lu de d t he re h ad be en no ret al ia ti on

.

Bri nk le y an d Sl ed ge sc he du le d a fo ll ow- up m eet in g wit h Lov el ace fo r Ju ly 31

to ag ai n di sc us s he r pe rfo rm an ce. Gol db erg was no t pr es en t. Bri nk le y pr e s e n te d
Lo v e la ce wit h a ch eck li st of he r du ti es to gu id e th e di sc us si on an d rei te rat ed th e

co m pl ai nt s th ey ha d rece iv ed fro m di ffer en t te am s. The cri ti ci sm up se t Lov el ace, an d sh e was un ab le to di sc us s th e m at te rs wit h Brin kl ey or Sl ed ge

. Sh e was pa rti cu la rly

up se t by Bri nk le y ’s at te m pt to di sc us s pe rfo rm an ce is su es wit h he r aft er sh e ha d fil ed

an FMLA ret al ia ti on co m pl ai nt . Lov el ace a sk ed to go ho m e, an d S le dg e ag reed

.

Sh or tl y th erea fte r, Bri nk le y wen t to c h e c k o n Lov el ace at he r wor k st at io n. Acco rd in g to Bri nk le y , wh en Lov el ace sa w h er, sh e jum pe d, y el le d at Bri nk le y no t
to to uc h he r an d to ge t away fro m he r, an d cal le d he r “ ev il .” Lo vel ac e v. W as hi ng to n Uni v. Sc h. of Med
., No. 4: 1 5

- c v

- 0 1 6 9 4- RWS, 20 17 W L 52 78 11 8, at *2 (E.D. Mo

. Nov

. 13
, 20 17 ). A co wor ke r al so rep or te d he ari ng Lov el ace rep eat ed ly y el l “ ge t away fro m m e” at Bri nk le y

. St at em en t of Mat eri al F a c t s , D e c l. of Nata li e Tay lo r at 2,
Lo vel ac e v. W

as hi ng to n Uni v. Sc h. of

Med

. , No. 4: 15 -cv -0 16 94 -RWS (E.D. Mo

. Apr

. 14
, 20 17 ), ECF No. 38 -9

. Thi s co wor ke r de s c r i be d Lov el ace’s be ha vi or as “ ve ry

un pr of es si on al an d di sr up ti ve ” an d “ ou t of co nt ro l.” Id

. By co n t r as t, Lov el ace

m ai nt ai ne d th at sh e di d no t sh ou t or sc ream du rin g th e in ci de nt

. And
, an ot he r wit ne ss ,
a nu rs e, to ld hu m an res ou rces (HR) tha t no on e was sh ou ti ng bu t th at Lov el ace was crying

. Fo ll owi ng th e in ci de nt , Bri nk le y in fo rm ed Sl ed ge ab ou t th e co nf ro nt at io n,

-5

-an d Sl ed ge se nt Lov el ace ho m e. Lov el ace as ke d whe th er sh e was be in g fir ed

. Sl ed ge

sa id no

.

Tha t ev en in g, Sl ed ge e-m ai le d Barc zews ki to de sc rib e de ve lo pm en ts wit h
Lov el ace an d to reco m

m en d pl aci ng Lov el ace on le ave. Ba rc ze w ski not if

ie d L ove la ce

on Aug us t 2 th at sh e was be in g pl aced on ad m in is tra ti ve le av e. On Aug us t 4, Sl ed ge , St ewart , Br i n k le y , an d Gol db erg m et to di sc us s Lov el ace’s st at us

. The gr ou p ul ti m at el y de ci de d to reco m m en d Lov el ace’s te rm in at io n. The ne xt da y , Barc zews ki

te rm in at ed Lov el ace. In hi s di sc ha rg e l e t t e r , Barc zews ki sa id Lov el ace’s Ju ly 31 of fic e be ha vi or cau se d he r te rm in at io n. In hi s de po si ti on , Barc zews ki ex pl ai ne d th at whi le he ha d co ns id ered in pu t fro m St ewart , Sl ed ge , Bri nk le y , an d Gol db erg , it was hi s d eci si on to ter m in at e Lov el ace a nd th at he ha d wri tt en he r di sc ha rg e le tt er.

Lov el ace su ed bo th W USM an d BJ H fo ll owi ng he r te r mi n a ti on , al le gi ng vi ol at io ns of th e FMLA an d MHRA. Sp eci fic al ly, sh e al le ge d th at W USM an d BJ H vi ol at ed th e FMLA by ret al ia ti ng ag ai ns t he r fo r ta ki ng le av e an d vi ol at ed th e MHRA by ret al ia ti ng ag a i n s t h e r fo r m ak in g co m pl ai nt s ab ou t raci al an d di sa bi li ty di sc riminat io n.

The di st ric t cou rt trea te d W USM an d BJ H as Lov el ace’s join t em pl oyers and

gr an te d su m

m ary jud gm en t in th ei r fav or

. The co ur t de te rm in ed th at Lo v e l a c e h ad fai le d to st at e a pr im a faci e cas e of FMLA ret al ia ti on , as sh e ha d no t m et he r bu rd en of p ro vi ng a cau sa l co nn ect io n be twee n he r te rm in at io n an d he r FMLA le av e. The

co ur t no te d th at “ [c]on si de rin g th e reco rd as a who le
, th e ev id en ce de m on st rat es th at L ove la ce w as te rm ina te d for un rel at ed in te rv en in g no n- ret alia tor y re as ons. ” Lo ve lac e , 20 17 W L 52 78 11 8, at *5

. The co ur t al so de t e r mi n e d t h at Lov el ace ha d fai le d to

es ta bl is h a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact de m on st rat in g ret al ia ti on b a s e d o n a

co m pl ai n t of raci al or di sa bi li ty di sc riminat io n. The di st ric t co ur t al so de ni ed
St ep he n’s lo ss of co ns or ti um c l a i m o n t he ba si s th at su ch a cl ai m is “ a de riv at iv e

-6

-cl ai m th at ari se s ou t of th e or ig in al in jury to th e sp ou se .” Id

. at *7 (in te rn al qu ot at io n

om it te d)

.

II. Dis cu ss io n

W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su mm a r y jud gm en t. Su m m ary jud gm en t is pr op er if th e m ov an t sh o w s th at th ere is no ge nu in e di s p u t e a s t o an y m at eri al fact an d th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w. W e co ns id er th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or a b l e to [Lov el ace] an d gi ve he r th e be ne fit of al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in th e reco rd

. The re is no di sc riminat io n- cas e ex cep ti on to a di st ric t co ur t’s p owe r to gra nt su m m ary jud gm en t.

Ebe rs ol e v. No vo No rd is k, In c. , 75 8 F .3d 91 7, 9 23 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4) (cl ean ed up ).

A. FMLA Dis cr imi na ti on Cla im On ap pe al , Lo ve la ce ren ew s h e r cl ai m s th at W USM an d BJ H t erm in at ed he r in ret al ia ti on for tak in g F MLA le av e.

The FMLA pr ov id es th at “ an el ig ib le em pl oyee sh al l be en ti tl ed to a to ta l of
12 wor kwe ek s of le av e du rin g an y 12 -m on th pe rio d” if th e em pl oyee sa ti sf

ie s cert ai n
st at ut or y req ui rem en ts

. 29 U.S.C. § 26 12 (a)( 1)

. The FMLA “ m ak es it un la wfu l fo r an

em pl oyer to ‘int erfe re wit h, re s t r a i n , o r de ny th e ex erci se of or th e at te m pt to

ex erci se ’ rig ht s pr ov id ed un de r th e FMLA.” Pul cz in sk i v. Tr in it y St ru ct ur al To wer

s, In c. , 69 1 F.3 d 99 6, 10 05 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng 29 U.S.C. § 26 15 (a)( 1) ). One type of FMLA cl ai m

th at we ha ve reco gn iz ed

ari se s whe n an em

pl oyer ta ke s ad ve rs e act io n ag ai ns t a n e mp l o y ee be cau se th e em

pl oyee ex erci se s rig ht s to whi ch he is en ti tl ed un de r th e FMLA. In th is sc en ari o, th e em pl oyer do es no t pr ev en t th e e mp lo y ee f r om rece iv in g FMLA be ne fit s. Rat he r, it is al le ge d th at aft e r t h e
em pl oyee ex erci se d hi s st at ut or y ri g h t s, th e em pl oyer di sc riminat ed

-7

-ag ai ns t hi m in th e te rm s an d co nd it io ns of em pl oym en t. A n em

pl oyee

m ak in g t hi s t y

pe of cla im m

us t pro ve th at th e em

pl oyer was m ot iv at ed by th e em pl oyee’s ex erci se of rig ht s un de r th e FMLA. The te xt ua l ba si s fo r su ch a cl ai m is no t well de ve lo pe d in ou r cas es , bu t th e cl ai m li ke ly ari se s un de r th e ru le of § 26 15 (a)( 1) th at an em pl oyer m ay no t in te rfer e wit h, res tra in
, or de ny th e ex erci se of or th e at te m pt to ex erci se r i g h ts de fin ed by the FMLA.

Id

. at 1 00 6 (c le an ed up ).

W hi le th e pa rti es an d di s t r i c t c o u r t refe r to th is type of cl ai m as a ret al ia ti on cl ai m , it is “ m or e pr op erl y ch arac te riz ed as [a] di sc riminat io n cl ai m .” Ja cks on v. Ci ty of Hot Sp ri ng

s , 75 1 F.3 d 85 5, 85 8 n.1 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (ci ti ng Pul cz in sk i , 69 1 F.3 d at 10 06 ). W e ap pl y th e McDo nn e l l D o u gl as bu rd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rk to FMLA di sc riminat io n cl ai m s. Pul cz in sk i , 69 1 F.3 d at 10 07

. “ To es ta bl is h a pr ima fa ci e cas e of FMLA di sc riminat io n, an em pl oyee m us t sh ow: ( 1 ) th at he en ga ge d in act iv it y
pr ot ect ed un de r th e Act, (2 ) th at he su ffer ed a m at eri al ly ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n,

a n d (3 ) th at a cau sa l co nn ect io n ex is te d be twee n th e em pl oyee’s act io n an d t h e ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n.” Id

. The “ em pl oyee m us t pr ov e th at [h er] ex erci se of FMLA ri gh ts ‘ pl ay ed a pa rt’ in th e em pl oyer’s dec is io n.” Id

. (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

To es ta bl is h cau sa ti on , an em pl oyee m us t pr es en t “ ev id en ce th at gi ve s ris e to

an in fere nc e o f

. . . a [d is cri m in at or y ] m ot iv e.” Ki pp v. Mo. Hig hw ay & Tr an sp

. Co mm’n.
, 28 0 F.3 d 89 3, 89 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). Tho ug h te m po ral pr ox im it y be twee n th e

us e of le av e an d te rm in at io n m ay es ta bl is h a cau sa l li nk be twee n th e two ev en ts , su ch

pr ox im it y is “ rare ly” su ffi ci en t by i ts el f, id

. , un le ss th e ti m e rel at io n is “ ex tre m el y cl os e.” Ebe rs ol e , 75 8 F.3 d at 92 5. Fu rth erm or e, an em pl oyee’s us e of FMLA do es no t in su la te he r fro m em

pl oym en t de ci si on s th at are ba se d on gr ou nd s ot he r th an FMLA

us ag e. Id

. at 92 3.

-8

-Lo v e l a ce arg ue s th at th e ti m in g of he r te rm in at io n su gg es ts ret al ia ti on

. We

di sa gr ee. The op po si t e is tru e. Abo ut ni ne m on th s el ap se d fro m th e be gi nn in g of
Lov el ace’s FMLA le av e an d he r te rm in at i on an d ab ou t fiv e m on th s be twee n he r
ret ur n fro m le av e an d he r t e r mi n a ti on

. “ [W] e ha ve [p rev io us ly] de te rm in ed th at a

on e-m on th or two -m on th la g is to o lo n g [ t o es ta bl is h a cau sa l co nn ect io n] ab se nt
ot he r ev id en ce.” Id

. at 92 5. Give n th e ti m e sp an in th is cas e, Lov el ace was req ui red

to p r e s e n t “ so m et hi ng m or e” th an te m po ral pr ox im it y

. Si sk v. Pict ur e Peo pl e, In c. , 66 9 F.3 d 89 6, 90 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Lov el ace’s us e o f F MLA le av e so m e ha lf- y ear
pr io r to he r te rm in at io n is in su ffi ci en t to sh ow he r te rm in at io n w a s a n a c t of di sc riminat io n.

A s ad dit ional ev id en ce, Lov el ace al le ge s th at he r su pe rv is or s co ns pi red ag ai nst he r to “ crea te ” pe rfo rm an ce iss ue s just ifyin g her te rm in at io n. App el la nt s’ Br. at 28

. As pr oo f, Lov el ace no te s th at sh e rece iv ed po si ti ve ev al ua ti on s du rin g he r pr io r y ears of em pl oym en t wit h W USM an d BJ H. Howev er , a n em pl oyee’s pr io r sa ti sf

act or y

se rv ic e do es no t in su la te he r fro m ad ve rs e co ns eq ue nc es fo ll owi ng a la te r la ps e in

pe rfo rm an ce. And
, Lov el ace pr es en ts no ev id en ce t h at th e pe rfo rm an ce an d be ha vi or al co m

pl ai nt s v oi ced by he r co ll eag ue s— in pa rti cu la r, Orf an d Dr. Van Tin e—we re no t ge nu in e. The se co m pl ai nt s, whe th er tru e or f a l se , pr ov id ed a

no nd is cri m in at or y ba si s fo r Lov el ace’s su pe rv is or s to di sc us s he r wor k pe rfo rm an ce. Lov el ace’s su pe rv is or s of fere d he r th e op po r t u n i t y t o rev is e he r in it ia ll y ne ga ti ve
pe rfo rm an ce rev ie w. The ev e n t s t h a t fo ll owe d th e Ju ly 31 m eet in g ha ve no t be en sh own to be rel at ed to Lov el ace’s us e of FMLA or an y an im us to ward s th at us e. The de ci si on to te rm in at e Lov el ace ba se d on th e of fic e in ci de nt m ay ha ve be en m is ta ke n

or im pr ud en t, bu t in or de r to be act io na bl e, it m us t be sh own to be co nn ect ed to Lov el ace’s us e of FMLA le av e. The reco rd in th is cas e si m pl y do es no t es ta bl is h th is

co nn ect io n.

Lov el ace ad m it s th at sh e was un wil li ng to di sc us s he r pe rfo rm an ce wit h Sl ed ge

an d Bri nk le y on J ul y 31 an d th at sh e as ke d to be ex cu se d fro m th e m eet in g.

-9

-Barc zews ki ’s Aug us t 5 te rm in at io n le tt er id en ti fie d Lov el ace’s Ju ly 31 po st -m eet in g

be ha vi or as th e cau se fo r he r te rm in at io n. Lov el ace do es no t di sp ut e th at Barc zews ki

wou ld ha ve ha d t he rig ht to ter m in at e h er fo r th e rep or te d o ut bu rs t. 3

Lov el ac e’ s “ int er

ve nin g unpr ote ct ed co nd uc t” — i.e., he r refu sa l to en ga ge wit h Bri nk le y an d Sl ed ge on Ju ly 31 an d he r su bs eq ue nt ou tb ur st —en de d an y co nn ect io n th ere m ig ht ha ve be twee n he r FMLA le av e an d he r ev en tu al te rm in at io n. Se e Ki el v. Se le ct Ar t i

f i c i a l s , In c. , 16 9 F.3 d 11 31
, 11 36 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (en ba nc ) (“ Alt ho ug h

co nt es ti ng an un la wfu l em pl oym en t pr act ic e is pr ot ect ed c o n d uc t, th e

an ti -d is cri m in at io n st at ut es do no t in su la te an em pl oyee fro m di sc ip li ne fo r vi ol at in g th e em pl oyer’s rul es or d is ru pt in g t he work pl ace.” ).

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in gr an ti ng W USM an d BJ H su m m ary jud gm en t

on Lov el ace’s FM LA di sc riminat io n c la im

.

B. MHRA Retal ia ti on Cla im The MHRA

m ak es it an un la wfu l di sc riminat or y pr act ic e to ret al ia te or di sc riminat e in an y m an ne r a ga in st an y ot he r pe rs on be cau se su ch pe rs on ha s

Lov el ace arg ue s “ cat ’s pa w” ret al ia ti on in an at te m pt to es ta bl is h th e req ui si te 3

co nn ect io n be twee n he r FMLA le av e an d Barc zews ki ’s d eci si on to te rm in at e he r,
es se nt ia ll y arg ui ng th at Gol db erg an d Bri nk le y du pe d Barc zews ki in to te rm in a t i ng Lov el ace ba se d on th ei r “ di sg us t” at he r ha vi ng ta ke n FMLA le av e. App el la nt s’ Br. at 25

. Howev er, “ cat ’s pa w” li ab il it y “ req ui res th at th ere be a pe rs on po ss es si ng bo th (1 ) th e ne ces sa ry [d is cri m in at or y ] an im us an d (2 ) in flu en ce, le ve rag e or co nt ro l ov er th e de ci si on m ak er, su ch th at it co ul d be sa id th e de ci si on m ak er was act in g at th e pe rs on ’s bi dd in g.” Edw ar ds v. Lyn ch
, 11 1 F. Su pp

. 3d 98 9, 10 03 (W. D. Mo

. 20 15 ). Here, am on g ot he r t h in gs , th ere is no ev id en ce th at Barc zews ki di d no t te rm in at e Lov el ace of hi s own vo li ti on , ba se d on th e Ju ly 31 in ci de nt

. In fact
, Gol db erg was no t

ev en pre se nt at t he Ju ly 31 m eet in g t ha t p reci pi ta te d Lo ve la ce’s t erm in at io n.

-1 0-op po se d an y pr act ic e pr oh ib it ed by th is ch ap te r. To es t a bl is h a pr im a

faci e cas e of ret al ia ti on un de r th e MHRA, a pl ai nt iff m us t pr ov e th at : (1 ) he co m pl ai ne d of dis cri m in at io n; (2 ) th e em pl oyer to ok ad ve rs e act io n ag ai ns t hi m ; an d (3 ) a cau sa l rel at io ns hi p ex is te d be twee n th e co m pl ai nt

an d t he ad ve rs e act io n.

McCr ai n e

y v

. Ka ns as Ci ty Mo. Sc h. Dis t. , 33 7 S.W .3d 74 6, 75 2– 53 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 11 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. W hi le “ [a] ret al ia ti on cl ai m is no t co nd it io ne d on th e su cces s of the un de rlyin g di sc riminat io n or ha ras sm en t clai m ,” th e co m pl ai ni ng

em pl oyee m us t ha ve “ ha d a reas on ab le go od fai th be li ef th at th ere were gr ou nd s fo r th e cl ai m of di sc riminat io n or ha ras sm en t.” So to v. Co st co W ho le sa le Co rp

. , 50 2 S.W .3d 38
, 48 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Min ze v. Mo. Dep ’t of Pub

. Sa fe ty , 43 7 S.W .3d 27 1, 27 5– 76 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 14 )). “ [T]he su cces s or fai lu re of a ret al ia ti on

c l a i m is an al y ti cal ly di vo rced fro m th e m eri ts of th e un de rlyin g di sc riminat io n o r ha ras sm en t cl ai m ” “ as lo ng as ” th e em pl oyee ha d a reas on ab le go od fai th be li ef th at th ere were gr ou nd s to br in g th e cl ai m

. McCr ai ne y , 33 7 S

. W. 3 d a t 75 3 (q uo ti ng W al la ce v. DTG Ope ra ti on s, In c. , 44 2 F.3 d 11 12
, 11 18 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ), ov er ru le d on
ot he r gr ou nd

s by To rg er

so n v. Ci ty of Roc he st er , 64 3 F.3 d 10 31 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc )).

Lov el ace arg ue s th e di st ric t co u r t e rred by an al y zi ng bo th he r raci al an d d i sa bi li ty di sc riminat io n cl ai m s on th e ba si s of th ei r un de rlyin g su cces s. Lov el a c e

m is in te rp ret s t he di st ric t co ur t’s anal y si s. Thou gh Mi ss ou ri l aw do es no t re qu ire an

em pl oyee br in gi ng an MHRA ret al ia ti on cla im to be cert ai n on th e cl ai m ’s su cces s, it do es req ui re th e em

pl oyee to h a v e “a reas on ab le go od fai th be li ef” th at th ere are
gr ou nd s fo r m ak in g th e un de rlyi n g di sc riminat io n cl ai m

. So to , 50 2 S.W .3d at 48 (q uo ti ng Min ze , 43 7 S.W .3d at 27 6)

. Det e r m in in g whe th er su ch a be li ef ex is te d

ne c e s s a r il y req ui res so m e refe ren ce to th e el em en ts of th e type of di sc riminat io n al le ge d.

-1 1-Lov el ace cl ai m s th at W USM an d BJ H r et al ia te d ag a i ns t he r fo r co m pl ai ni ng of raci al di sc riminat io n to HR. Sh e ex pl ai ns th at be cau se “ race [was ] in vo lv ed ” in th e Bu tc he r co m

m en t, he r co m

pl ai nt to HR ab ou t Bri nk le y ’s q u e s t io ns rel at ed to th e Bu tc he r co m

m en t co ns tit

ute d a co m

pla int ab out raci al di sc riminat io n. App el la nt s’ Br.

at 33

. Lov el ace m is un de rs ta nd s wha t qu al ifi es as raci al di sc riminat io n b y eq ua ti ng

accu sa ti on s of raci st be ha vi or wit h raci st be ha vi or it se lf. Howev er, “ Mi ss ou ri

pr eced en t in te rp ret in g di sc riminat io n on th e ba si s of ‘race’ are co nf in ed to ev al ua ti ng whe th er an emp lo

yer ’ s c o n d u ct co ns ti tu te d di sc riminat io n of an em pl oyee be ca us e of th e co lo r of [h er

] sk in , as op po se d to th e su b s t a n c e o f t he em pl oyee’s be li efs (acc ur at e or in accu rat e) on is su es rel at in g to ‘race.’” S h o re v. Ch il dr en ’s Mer cy Hos p. , 4 77 S.W .3d 72 7, 73 5 (Mo . C t. App . 2 01 5) (s eco nd e mp h a s i s a dd ed ). W hi le

“ fal se ly accu si ng so m eo ne of be in g a raci st is m or al ly wro ng ,” su ch accu sa ti on s

can no t fo rm t he ba si s of an MHRA raci al di sc riminat io n cl ai m

. Id

. at 73 4. Fo r
pu rp os es of th e MHR A
, accu si ng an em pl oyee of raci sm do es no t co ns ti tu te raci al di sc riminat io n.

Here, Lov el ace do es no t cl ai m th at sh e was di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t “ be cau se of th e co lo r of [h er] sk in .” Id

. at 73 5. Lov el ace ha d no le gi ti m at e b as is fo r be li ev in g Bri nk le y was di sc riminat in g ag ai ns t he r on th e ba si s of he r race whe n Bri nk le y as ke d he r whe th er sh e h ad m ad e a co m m en t b as ed on But ch er ’s race ; th eref or e, Lov el ace al so ha d no le gi ti m at e ba si s fo r be li ev in g sh e ha d co m pl ai ne d of raci al di sc riminat io n
to HR. Beca us e Lov el ace c ou ld no t hav e ha d a reas on ab le go od fai th be li ef tha t th e

co nd uc t sh e op po se d ha d co ns ti tu te d raci al di sc riminat io n in vi ol at io n of th e MHRA, he r MHRA raci al di sc riminat io n ret al ia ti on cl ai m fai ls

. Se e McCr ai ne y , 33 7 S.W .3d

at 75 4.

Lov el ace’s di sa bi li ty di sc riminat io n ret al ia ti on cl ai m si m il arl y fai ls

. W e ha ve

ex pl ai ne d th at “ [e]vi de nc e of ge ne ral tem po rary work res tri ct io ns , wit ho ut m or e, is in su ffi ci en t to co ns ti tu te a di sa bi li ty,” Sa mue ls v. Ka ns as Ci ty Mo. Sc h. Dis t. , 43 7

-1 2-F.3 d 79 7, 80 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ), an d Lov el ace ad m it s th at sh e “ co m pl ai ne d to HR th at 4
sh e w a s be in g ha ras se d by Gol db erg reg ard in g wo rk pl ac e re st ri ct io ns fo ll owi ng a

su rg ery. ” App el la nt s’ Br. at 35 (em ph as is ad de d)

. Lov el ace al so ad m it s th at sh e was

no t d is ab le d, an d s he do es no t al le ge th at Gol db erg reg ard ed he r as di sa bl ed

.

Bec au se Lov el ace co ul d no t h a v e ha d a reas on ab le go od fai th be li ef th at th e

co nd uc t sh e op po se d ha d co ns ti t u t e d d is ab il it y di sc riminat io n in vi ol at io n of th e MHRA, t h e d is tri ct co ur t di d no t err in gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of
W USM an d BJ H on Lo v e l a ce’s MHRA ret al ia ti on cl ai m

. Se e McCr ai ne y , 33 7 S.W .3d at 7 54

.

C. Lo ss of Co ns or ti um As Lov el ace co rrec tl y no te s, “ [t]he Dis tri ct Co ur t was req ui red to di sm is s th e lo ss of co nsor

tiu m claim br ou gh t by St e[p h]en Lov el ace be cau se , un de r Mi ss ou ri la w, it is a de riv at iv e sp ou sa l cl ai m .” App el la nt s’ Br. at 36

. Bec au se we affi rm th e di st ric t

co ur t’s de ci si on to gr an t su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of W USM an d BJ H on th e
ret al ia t i o n cl ai m s, we li ke wis e affi rm it s de ci si on to di sm is s St ep he n’s lo ss of

co ns or ti um

cla im

.

III. Co nc lu si on The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Tho ug h Sam

ue ls is an ADA cas e, “ [t]o th e ex te nt Mi ss ou ri ru li ng s ha ve st at ed 4

a te st f o r d e t erm in in g di sa bi li ty fro m wor ki ng , act ua l or pe rcei ve d, th ey ci te an d fo ll ow Fed eral de ci si on s.” Heu to n v. For d Mot or Co

. , 3 0 9 F. Su pp

. 3d 71 4, 71 6 (W. D. Mo. 2 01 8)

. -1 3-