The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued several significant decisions that employers doing business in Minnesota should be aware of. Here are a few highlights of recent Eight Circuit Decisions that have addressed important topics in employment law.
Reasonable Accommodations
On June 4, 2024, the Court issued a decision in Howard v. City of Sedalia, Missouri. In Howard, a pharmacist, who suffered from Type I diabetes and hypoglycemic unawareness, accepted a position at a medical center. The pharmacist disclosed her condition during the interview process, which included not knowing when her blood sugar would drop to dangerous levels.
After working for more than a year, the pharmacist learned she would be receiving a service dog that could detect an impending blood sugar drop and avoid an emergency. She then informed the center that she would need the service dog when she worked. Out of concern for a potential risk to patients, the medical center advised Ms. Howard that it would try to find an accommodation, including having a mutually agreeable third party to inspect the pharmacy to determine what risks, if any, the service dog might pose. The pharmacist resigned, however, claiming that she would not accept any accommodation other than having the service dog at work. She then sued the medical center for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A jury awarded the pharmacist approximately $130,000 in damages, and the trial judge denied the medical center’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.
The Eight Circuit reversed and ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the medical center, reiterating its holdings last year in Hopman v. Union Pac. R.R., 68 F.4th 394 (8th Cir. 2023). In Hopman, the Eighth Circuit confirmed its view that “Congress in the ADA intended to bar employer discrimination in providing a benefit or privilege offered to employees ‘that does not directly affect the ability of . . . a qualified individual to perform [her] job’s essential functions.’” The Howard court noted that the pharmacist had done her job for over a year without a service dog and never claimed she could not do her job without the service dog. Rather, the Court found she merely claimed she would do the job better with a service dog. Applying Hopman, the Eighth Circuit determined that if an employee can perform her job, an employer is not required to provide an accommodation that simply provides the same assistance on the job as they would enjoy at home. Under such circumstances, the accommodation is considered a “personal item,” and not a job necessity.
Retaliation and Temporal Proximity
On May 16, 2024, in Meinen v. Bi-State Development Agency, the Eight Circuit examined the issue of temporal proximity in retaliation claims under Title VII. The plaintiff had filed a lawsuit asserting claims of race and gender discrimination, as well retaliation for allegedly reporting such discrimination and later being terminated. The lower court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the Eight Circuit upheld the decision.
The court noted that the only facts asserted by plaintiff to show that his termination was caused by his complaints was the temporal proximity between the two. Relying on past precedent, the court noted that without more facts, the temporal proximity had to be “very close” to sufficiently allow an inference of causation. In Meinen, the plaintiff made a complaint about alleged discrimination in March 2021 and was terminated in May 2021. The Court found that without more facts, this the two-month gap, by itself, was not sufficient to allow for such an inference.
Interestingly, in March 2024, the Eight Circuit decided Norgren v. Minnesota Dept. of Human Services, which also involved the issue of temporal proximity and causation to support a retaliation claim. There, two employees objected to undergoing mandatory antiracist and gender-identity training on religious grounds and subsequently asserted claims including discrimination and retaliation. One plaintiff alleged he was denied a promotion as retaliation for complaining of the alleged religious discrimination. While initially dismissed, the Eighth Circuit reinstated this claim, finding that allegations that he had previously been considered for positions in the past were sufficient to plead causation, and said that the claim was “further bolstered by the timing, as only three weeks elapsed between the protected conduct and the adverse action.” The Court then cited to prior decision which stated that a “six-week period between the EEOC charge and the termination plausibly alleges a but-for causal connection.”
Religious Discrimination and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA)
Finally, in Rubin v. The Mayo Clinic (May 24, 2024), the Eighth Circuit resolved a split between Minnesota federal courts regarding religious discrimination claims under the MHRA. The plaintiffs in Rubin alleged they were terminated from their jobs for refusing to comply with Covid-19 vaccination and testing requirements, citing their Christian beliefs as a basis for a religious objection. The lower court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims. The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding that plaintiffs had adequately stated claims for religious discrimination under both Title VII and the MHRA.
In analyzing the MHRA claims, the Eighth Circuit noted that “Minnesota’s federal courts are split on the issue,” even citing two decisions from the U.S. District Court, Minnesota, within the past year that had differing conclusions. The Eighth Circuit also noted that the Minnesota Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the MHRA applies to religious discrimination claims. Relying on Minnesota Supreme Court precedent, the Eighth Circuit determined that “the Minnesota Supreme Court would decide that the MHRA provides protection against failures to accommodate religious beliefs,” and reinstated the state law claims.