James A. Schierhoff v. Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare, L.P., a Limited Partnership
Docket: 05-1552
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; April 14, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
James A. Schierhoff filed a lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, L.P. (GSK) under the Missouri Human Rights Act, claiming age and disability discrimination following his termination in April 2002. The district court granted GSK summary judgment, which was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upon de novo review. Schierhoff, a 48-year-old packaging mechanic, had a significant absenteeism record, taking 172 days off (almost 40% of his work time) between June 2000 and March 2002 due to various medical and personal issues, including 12 weeks of Family Medical Leave in both 2000 and 2001. GSK cited this absenteeism as the reason for his termination, stating it impaired departmental operations.
While Schierhoff acknowledged his frequent absences, he contended that they were not the true reason for his dismissal. He referenced comments made by his supervisor, Edward Rohowetz, suggesting that he was seen as "generally disabled" and encouraged to quit due to his age. Schierhoff also mentioned a co-worker's report of another manager, Vertis Thomas, making remarks about older mechanics and retirement, which he interpreted as discriminatory. Additionally, Schierhoff highlighted his positive performance evaluations and argued that GSK's policies required warnings or progressive discipline for attendance issues, asserting that his absences were authorized for recovery from surgery and injuries, making them an invalid basis for termination.
Claims of age or disability discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) are evaluated using the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. A plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case, which then shifts the burden to the employer to provide a legitimate reason for the employment decision. If the employer does so, the plaintiff must then demonstrate that this reason is a pretext for discrimination. To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must show they belong to a protected age group, met job qualifications, were discharged, and were replaced by a younger employee. For disability discrimination, the plaintiff must prove they were disabled, could perform the job with or without reasonable accommodation, were discharged due to their disability, and that their protected status influenced the discharge.
In the case at hand, the district court determined that Schierhoff failed to establish a prima facie case for both age and disability discrimination. Although he was in a protected age group and discharged, he did not provide sufficient evidence of meeting job expectations or being replaced by a younger employee. For the disability claim, the court found he did not demonstrate being "disabled" or able to perform his job. Schierhoff argued that the district court erred by exclusively applying the McDonnell Douglas analysis and contended he had presented direct evidence of discrimination, which could potentially avoid summary judgment. Direct evidence must show a clear link between discriminatory motivation and the employment decision.
Schierhoff argues that a statement made by supervisor Rohowetz, suggesting he should "quit" because he was "old and worn out," serves as direct evidence of discriminatory intent related to his termination in 2002. Rohowetz, identified as a decisionmaker, allegedly influenced the termination decision; however, evidence indicates that he was not directly involved in the decision-making process. GSK's human resources manager clarified that the attendance inquiry was initiated by the plant manager and was not focused solely on Schierhoff.
Despite Schierhoff's claims that Rohowetz's actions—such as gathering attendance records and communicating the termination—imply he was a decisionmaker, there is no substantial evidence that Rohowetz had a role in the actual termination decision. Thus, his remark does not qualify as direct evidence of discrimination.
Furthermore, under the McDonnell Douglas framework for discrimination claims, Schierhoff failed to establish a prima facie case. To prove age discrimination, he must show he could perform his job to meet employer expectations. For disability discrimination, he must demonstrate the ability to perform his job with or without reasonable accommodation. Regular attendance is crucial for job performance, and Schierhoff's excessive absenteeism—peaking at 96 days in one year—exceeded levels deemed unacceptable.
Schierhoff contends that a jury might infer that regular attendance was not required of him due to positive evaluations and lack of prior warnings about his absences. However, these evaluations do not address his absenteeism, and GSK's policy clearly stated that excessive absences could lead to immediate discharge. Consequently, the district court's judgment is affirmed.
