ADA claim of discrimination
based upon association with a disabled person (plaintiff gives birth to child with Down's
Syndrome) survives summary judgment.
Strate v. Midwest
Bankcentre, Inc., 398 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. February 17, 2005) - This is an ADA
and Missouri Human Rights Act action alleging discrimination based upon
association with a disabled person.
Janet Strate began working for the Bank in 1990. By 2000, she had risen to
Executive VP of Operations and Information Systems. She reported directly to
Bank President, Frank Ziegler. On April 12, 2001, she began FMLA leave due
to her pregnancy. On April 20, 2001, she gave birth to a child with Down's
Syndrome. On April 24, 2001, she enrolled her newborn child in the Bank's
group healthcare plan. On July 2, 2001, Strate returned to work and Ziegler
told her that her position had been eliminated due to restructuring. A new
position had been created, VP of Customer Support. Ziegler told her that she
could apply for the position, but that the selection committee did not view
her as a viable candidate for the job. Strate did not apply for the position
and another employee, Sarina Stack, was selected. In fact, before Strate
attempted to return to work on July 2, Ziegler had sent an e-mail to a board
member noting that promoting Stack, while eliminating Strate, would result in a net
savings for the Bank, even if Stack were given a raise. Strate brought suit
under the theory that she was terminated based upon her association with her disabled newborn. The district court granted summary
judgment for the Bank. The Eighth Circuit affirms in part and reverses in
part. Strate argues that Desert
Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 123 S.Ct. 2148 (June 9, 2003) modified the
McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis. In
Desert Palace the U.S. Supreme
Court held that direct evidence is not required for a mixed-motive jury
instruction. Strate argues that now a plaintiff need only show that
discrimination was "a" motivating factor as opposed to having to show that
the Bank's proffered reason was entirely untrue. The Eighth Circuit holds
that Desert Palace, which was a
post-trial appeal, has no direct impact in the summary judgment context. In
any event, the Eighth Circuit's methodology at the summary judgment stage
are, in principle, consistent with Desert Palace. A plaintiff need only adduce enough admissible evidence
to raise a genuine doubt as to the legitimacy of the defendant's motive,
even if that evidence does not directly contradict or disprove the
defendant's articulated reasons for its actions. In this case, the Court
finds sufficient evidence for Strate's claim to survive summary judgment.
First, there is close temporal proximity (two months) between the child's
birth and Strate's termination. Second, Strate had a strong employment
history over an eleven-year period. Finally, she met the objective
qualifications for the new VP position and yet she was told that she was not
a viable candidate. Therefore, the Court affirms as to Strate's challenge to
the McDonnell Douglas analysis used by the district court, but reverses and remands on the issue
of whether Strate's claim should have been dismissed at the summary judgment
stage.
