Court Opinion

ID: 9491935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:28:15.081352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:01.280182
License: Public Domain

*1134WOLLMAN, Circuit J.
Paul Kiel brought this suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), Mo.Rev.Stat. § 213.010 et seq., against his employer, Select Artificials, Inc. (Select). The district court2 granted summary judgment in favor of Select on all claims. Kiel appealed, and a divided panel of this court reversed and remanded for trial. See Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc., 142 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir.1998). We granted Select’s petition for rehearing en bane, vacating the panel opinion. We now affirm the decision of the district court.
I.
Kiel has been deaf since birth. He was employed at Select as a billing clerk from January 1992 to February 1994. On several occasions he requested that Select purchase a telecommunications device (TDD) that would enable him to make business and personal telephone calls. Select did not provide the device because Kiel did not need it to perform his duties as a billing clerk. Although hearing employees occasionally communicated with clients by telephone, Select decided that Kiel’s supervisor could make client calls for him when they were needed. Kiel was allowed to make personal calls during breaks on those occasions when he brought his TDD from home.
Kiel also requested that Select provide him a sign-language interpreter for staff meetings and social gatherings. Select did not normally provide an interpreter because one was not needed to enable Kiel to perform his job duties. On one occasion, however, Kiel requested an interpreter prior to a training session related to his position, whereupon Select provided one for him.
On February 17, 1994, Kiel photocopied a letter that he had drafted to Robert Fry, co-owner of Select, again requesting that the company purchase a TDD. After observing Kiel at the photocopier, Julie Fry, the other co-owner of Select, approached him at his work station to inquire about his use of the copier. Kiel informed Ms. Fry that he was requesting that the company purchase a TDD. She told him that Select would not purchase the device. Visibly frustrated and upset, Kiel shouted at Ms. Fry, “You’re selfish, you’re selfish .” He then slammed his desk drawer, and as Ms. Fry walked away he made a remark about her recent purchase of a new automobile. Four other employees were present when Kiel did this. According to the employee witnesses, the episode lasted “a few minutes.”
Later that day, Ms. Fry asked Kiel if he realized that he had yelled at her in front of other employees. He said that he was not aware that he had raised his voice and apologized for doing so. After conferring with Mr. Fry, Ms. Fry decided to terminate Kiel for insubordination despite his apology.
Kiel raised claims of discriminatory discharge, retaliatory discharge, and failure to accommodate under the ADA and the MHRA. The district court concluded that Kiel did not produce evidence showing that Select’s non-discriminatory reason for terminating Kiel, insubordination, was pretextual. It also held that the temporal connection between Kiel’s letter requesting a TDD and his termination was insufficient to demonstrate retaliatory intent and that Select had not failed to accommodate Kiel.
II.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Price v. S-B Power Tool, 75 F.3d 362, 364 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 910, 117 S.Ct. 274,136 L.Ed.2d 197 (1996). Summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, we view the evidence and draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Miners v. Cargill Communications, Inc., 113 F.3d 820, 823 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 441, 139 L.Ed.2d 378 (1997).
In an employment discrimination case, the plaintiff must initially present a prima facie case to survive a motion for *1135summary judgment. See Lidge-Myrtil v. Deere & Co., 49 F.3d 1308, 1310 (8th Cir.1995) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)). The employer .must then rebut the presumption of discrimination by articulating a legitimate, non-diserimina-tory reason for the adverse employment action. See Lidge-Myrtil, 49 F.3d at 1310. If the employer does this, the burden of production shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the employer’s non-discriminatory reason is pretextual. Id. at 1311.
To make out a prima facie case under the ADA, Kiel was required to show that he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, that he is qualified to perform the essential functions of his position, and that he suffered an adverse employment action under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. Price, 75 F.3d at 365. Generally, evidence that a plaintiff was replaced by a similarly situated employee who is not disabled is sufficient to support an inference of discrimination. Id. Select did not dispute that Kiel was disabled or that he was qualified to perform his duties as billing clerk, and Kiel established that he was replaced by a hearing employee. Thus, Kiel met his initial burden under McDonnell Douglas.
The burden of production then shifted to Select to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Kiel’s termination. Select stated that it terminated Kiel because he insulted Ms. Fry, slammed his desk drawer, and made a sarcastic remark about Ms. Fry in the presence of four co-workers. Our cases have repeatedly held that insubordination and violation of company policy are legitimate reasons for termination. See Ward v. Procter & Gamble Paper Prods. Co., 111 F.3d 558, 560 (8th Cir.1997) (employee terminated for striking a co-worker); Price, 75 F.3d at 365-66 (employee terminated for excessive absenteeism); Lidge-Myrtil, 49 F.3d at 1310-11 (employee not chosen for promotion because of poor relationship with coworkers and violation of company policy); Miner v. Bi-State Dev. Agency, 943 F.2d 912, 913-14 (8th Cir.1991) (employee terminated for insubordination and violating various company policies).
Select having proffered a non-discriminatory reason for terminating Kiel, the burden shifted to Kiel to present evidence that Select’s reason was pretextual. See Lidge-Myrtil, 49 F.3d at 1311. In essence, Kiel was required to show a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Select actually fired him because of his disability. Id. Although it is possible for strong evidence of a prima facie case to also present a factual issue on pretext, see Rothmeier v. Investment Advisers, Inc., 85 F.3d 1328, 1333-37 (8th Cir.1996), the ultimate question is whether the plaintiff presents evidence of “conduct or statements by persons involved in [the employer’s] decision-making process reflective of a discriminatory attitude sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to infer that that attitude was a motivating factor in [the employer’s] decision to fire [the plaintiff].” Feltmann v. Sieben, 108 F.3d 970, 975 (8th Cir.1997) (citing Nelson v. J.C. Penney Co., 75 F.3d 343, 345 (8th Cir.1996)).
Kiel did not submit any evidence of pretext in this case. He relied entirely on his prima facie ease to challenge Select’s nondiscriminatory reason. The bare assertion that Select hired a hearing employee to replace Kiel did not raise a genuine factual issue regarding Select’s discriminatory intent, for Kiel did not point to any conduct or statements by the Frys that would permit a reasonable jury to find that insubordination was a mere pretext for his termination. Nor did he demonstrate that the Frys disciplined hearing employees less severely for insubordinate conduct. As for Kiel’s assertion that he did not realize he was shouting, he himself testified that “If I want to shout, I shout,” which is consistent with the co-workers’ testimony that they had never heard him raise his voice. In short, there is simply no evidence that discrimination was a motivating factor in Kiel’s termination.
Kiel contends that his discriminatory discharge claim falls within the mixed-motive analysis of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 248-50, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989). To trigger Price Waterhouse analysis, however, a plaintiff must show that “an impermissible motive played a motivating part in an adverse em*1136ployment decision.” Id. at 250, 109 S.Ct. 1775. We have interpreted this to require a plaintiff to present, at a minimum, some direct evidence of discriminatory motive. See Thomas v. First Nat’l Bank, 111 F.3d 64, 65-66 (8th Cir.1997); Hutson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 63 F.3d 771, 780-81 (8th Cir.1995). Because Kiel relied entirely on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of a discriminatory motive on Select’s part, the district court was correct in reviewing Kiel’s claim solely under the McDonnell Douglas framework. In light of Kiel’s failure to establish a genuine factual issue on pretext, the district court properly granted Select summary judgment on the discriminatory discharge claim.
III.
To present a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that he engaged in protected conduct, that he suffered an adverse employment action, and that the adverse action was causally linked to the protected conduct. See Montandon v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 116 F.3d 355, 359 (8th Cir.1997); Evans v. Kansas City, Mo. Sch. Dist., 65 F.3d 98, 100 (8th Cir.1995). Although contesting an unlawful employment practice is protected conduct, the anti-discrimination statutes do not insulate an employee from discipline for violating the employer’s rules or disrupting the workplace. See Evans, 65 F.3d at 102 (quoting Booker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 879 F.2d 1304, 1312 (6th Cir.1989)); Valdez v. Mercy Hosp., 961 F.2d 1401, 1403 (8th Cir.1992); Jackson v. St. Joseph State Hosp., 840 F.2d 1387, 1390 (8th Cir.1988). Generally, more than a temporal connection between the protected conduct and-the adverse employment action is required to present a genuine factual issue on retaliation. See Feltmann, 108 F.3d at 977; Nelson, 75 F.3d at 346-47.
Kiel’s requests for a TDD were protected communications. Insulting Ms. Fry and indulging in an angry outburst in the presence of co-workers, however, were certainly not, for the ADA confers no right to be rude. Kiel’s intervening unprotected conduct eroded any causal connection that was suggested by the temporal proximity of his protected conduct and his termination.
Kiel presented no evidence of conduct or statements that would permit a reasonable jury to find that Select actually fired him because he requested a TDD. Indeed, he had requested a TDD on numerous occasions, but he suffered no adverse employment action- until he engaged in abusive, derogatory conduct towards his employer. Kiel did not allege that Select disciplined other employees less harshly for insubordinate conduct. Nor did he show a history of discrimination at Select that would present a genuine factual issue on retaliatory intent. Rather, the record showed that Select has hired a number of deaf employees, has altered job duties to accommodate deaf employees, and has maintained a satisfactory working relationship with deaf employees. In sum, there is simply no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Select terminated Kiel in retaliation for his exercising any rights granted to him by the ADA.
Kiel argues that summary judgment was improper because a jury should decide whether his conduct was egregious enough to warrant termination. In the absence of any evidence of discriminatory intent, however, it is not the prerogative of the courts or a jury to sit in judgment of employers’ management decisions. See Montandon, 116 F.3d at 360. “[T]he employment-discrimination laws have not vested in the federal courts the authority to sit as super-personnel departments reviewing the wisdom or fairness of the business judgments made by employers, except to the extent that those judgments involve intentional discrimination.” Hutson, 63 F.3d at 781.
IV.
The ADA requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to allow disabled individuals to perform the essential functions of their positions. See 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (8) — (9). A reasonable accommodation should provide the disabled individual an equal employment opportunity, including an opportunity to attain the same level of performance, benefits, and privileges that is available to similarly situated employees who are not disabled. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 *1137(Appendix) (1998). If more than one accommodation would allow the individual to perform the essential functions of the position, “the employer providing the accommodation has the ultimate discretion to choose between effective accommodations, and may choose the less expensive accommodation or the accommodation that is easier for it to provide.” Id.
Select provided Kiel a reasonable accommodation by restructuring the billing clerk position. Although providing Kiel a TDD would also have constituted an effective accommodation, Select chose to have Kiel’s supervisor make the minimal number of client telephone calls that were required. This accommodation allowed Kiel an equal employment opportunity at Select. An interpreter was not required for Kiel to perform the essential functions of his position, and on the one occasion that a training session was relevant to Kiel’s position, Select provided him an interpreter. Accordingly, summary judgment was proper on Kiel’s failure to accommodate claim.
Because Kiel’s claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act are premised on the same factual bases as his ADA claims, they must also fail. See Finley v. Empiregas, Inc., 975 F.2d 467, 473 (8th Cir.1992) (holding that federal employment discrimination decisions are authoritative for claims under the MHRA); Midstate Oil Co. v. Missouri Comm’n on Human Rights, 679 S.W.2d 842, 845-46 (Mo.1984) (en banc) (same).
The judgment is affirmed.
MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, dissents.

. The Honorable Terry I. Adelman, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, who presided over the case by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).