Lenzen v. Workers Compensation Reinsurance Assoc., No. 12-1211 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff asserted wrongful termination claims against the WCRA, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213; the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. 363A.01-.43; and the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, Minn. Stat. 181.932. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing these claims. The court held that there was no evidence giving rise to an inference that the WCRA terminated her because of her medical condition; plaintiff had no claim of ADA retaliation because she did not engage in protected activity by complaining about disability discrimination; the court doubted that the supervisor's alleged harassment of plaintiff and intimidating management style created a hostile work environment; plaintiff's claim that the WCRA failed to provide reasonable accommodations for her disability failed because she never requested or otherwise adequately informed the WCRA of the need for additional accommodations; plaintiff's Whistleblower Act claim was without merit because there was no evidence plaintiff was terminated because she engaged in statutorily protected conduct; and plaintiff's contention that the district court abused its discretion by excluding certain affidavits was without merit because any error was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil case - Employment discrimination. There was insufficient evidence that the employer's legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds for plaintiff's discharge were pretexts for disability discrimination; even if plaintiff engaged in protected activity under the ADA, she failed to show a causal connection between her actions and her termination; supervisor's management style, assuming it created a hostile work environment, was directed at the staff in general and was not directed at plaintiff because of her disability; accommodation claim failed as plaintiff never requested or adequately informed the employer of the need for the additional accommodation; Minnesota Whistleblower Act claim rejected.
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.