Kelleher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 15-2105 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against Wal-Mart, alleging disability discrimination, failure to continue to accommodate, retaliation, and harassment. After being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, plaintiff was transferred to a new position at Wal-Mart. The district court granted summary judgment to Wal-Mart on all claims. Plaintiff has conceded that the new overnight cashier position is less physically strenuous than stocking, and her acceptance of that position was accompanied by a $.20/hour raise. The court concluded that, because plaintiff failed to show she suffered an underlying adverse employment action, she has not made out a prima facie case of discrimination, and she cannot prove her claim that Wal-Mart failed to accommodate her disability; with temporal proximity alone to support her argument for pretext, plaintiff has failed to create a genuine issue for trial on her retaliation claim; in regard to her workplace harassment claim, plaintiff failed to identify any discriminatory statements made to her or any evidence sufficiently severe to affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of her employment; and plaintiff failed to successfully establish that she faced a hostile work environment where plaintiff offers no examples or evidence of an increased workload beyond stating that she had four pallets to stock one night. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Smith and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. For ADA purposes, plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action because accepting the position defendant offered after being made aware of her request for an accommodation did not materially change the terms or conditions of her employment as the position was less strenuous and received higher pay; as a result, she failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination and cannot prove her claim defendant failed to accommodate her disability; with respect to her claim that defendant retaliated against her for making the request for accommodation, under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, defendant provided legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for its actions which plaintiff failed to show were pretexts; the actions plaintiff relies on to establish a hostile work environment did not rise to the level of harassment and there is no evidence to support her claim that she received increased work or was held to a higher standard than other employees. [ March 30, 2016
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.