Denn v. CSL Plasma, No. 15-1494 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against his former employer, CSL, alleging violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), Mo. Rev. 213.055, 213.070. The district court granted CSL's motion for summary judgment. In regard to the sex discrimination claim, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to show a genuine issue of material fact regarding the credibility of his written warnings, and plaintiff's version of the events immediately preceding his firing fails to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the credibility of CSL’s stated basis for terminating his employment. Because plaintiff admitted that he failed to comply with CSL’s policies, no genuine issue of material fact remained with respect to the credibility of CSL’s assertion that plaintiff’s failure was the basis for the termination of his employment. Because plaintiff failed to show how he and a female employee engaged in similar conduct, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether CSL treated plaintiff less favorably than similarly situated female employees. Further, no genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether CSL treated plaintiff unfavorably relative to similarly situated employees; without facts connecting the comment at issue, made by one of Denn’s peers, to CSL’s decision to fire Denn, the statement does not give rise to a genuine issue of material fact regarding Denn’s discrimination claim; and the fact that other male employees were disciplined was insufficient to render summary judgment improper. In regard to the retaliation claim, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to point to any evidence showing that his discrimination complaint was a “contributing factor” to any adverse action taken by CSL. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment Discrimination. In this action alleging gender discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act, the employer provided non-sex-related grounds for plaintiff's discipline and termination which were credible; nor did the evidence show that the employer treated plaintiff unfavorably relative to similarly situated female employees; plaintiff failed to provide direct evidence of discrimination and a statement he relied on to establish this was not made by persons involved in the decisional process; with respect to plaintiff's claim that another male employee also suffered discipline based on his gender, the testimony from that employee did not specify the nature of the treatment or whether it involved the type of discipline plaintiff received and, as a result, it was not sufficient to defeat summary judgment for the defendant; plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between his discrimination complaint and his discipline, and his retaliation claim must fail.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.