Cherry v. Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, No. 15-1930 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against Siemens, her former employer, alleging unlawful discrimination based on race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. Plaintiff, an African American, was terminated as part of a reduction in force. The district court granted summary judgment to Siemens. The court concluded that the district court did not err by proceeding to the McDonnell Douglas analysis because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, does not show a genuine issue of material fact as to Siemens’ liability under a cat’s paw theory. Under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the court concluded that there is no evidence in the record to support a finding of pretext as to the actual decisionmaker. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Colloton, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Employment discrimination. The record did not show a genuine issue of material fact as to defendant's liability under a cat's paw theory, and the district court did not err by proceeding to the McDonnell Douglas analysis; under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the district court did not err in finding defendant had articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory ground for plaintiff's discharge - a company-wide reduction in force - which plaintiff failed to show was a pretext for discrimination.
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.