Opinion ID: 4545148
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The RIF Termination

Text: Before the RIF, CP terminated two of the Operations Supervisors scheduled to be terminated in the RIF for unrelated reasons. Another Operations Supervisor scheduled to be terminated resigned. And, one of the Operations Supervisors who was not scheduled to be terminated resigned and took a position elsewhere. Therefore, CP only needed to eliminate two positions to reach its restructuring goal. On March 31, 2016, Marthe and Perkins informed Button that she was being terminated as a result of the RIF. CP then eliminated the Missouri desk, and the territory realignment went into effect in April 2016. Button filed this case, alleging that CP discriminated against her on the basis of her gender and because of her use of FMLA. CP filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court first considered Button’s MHRA gender discrimination claim and found that Button had failed to show that gender was a contributing factor in her termination. The district court then found that Button failed to establish a FMLA discrimination claim because Button did not show that CP’s RIF was pretext for discrimination. Consequently, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of CP. Button appeals. -5-