Moses v. Dassault Falcon Jet Corp., No. 16-4343 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for DFJ on his age discrimination and retaliation claims brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA); (2) disability discrimination and retaliation claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and (3) state-law claim for age and disability discrimination and retaliation brought under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 (ACRA).
The court held that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his federal claims where his termination played no part in the initial EEOC charge because the right-to-sue letter preceded the date of the termination; plaintiff's ACRA claim failed because no genuine issues of material fact exist on whether plaintiff was qualified to do the essential job functions of his position and whether the termination was due to his disability. The court also held that plaintiff's hostile work environment claim failed because the alleged harassment was not severe enough to support his claim, and plaintiff's ADA claims also failed because he was unable to perform the essential functions of his job, with or without accommodation, and he failed to show but-for causation as to retaliation.
Court Description: Before Smith, Author, and Kelly and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment Discrimination. Plaintiff was terminated after he received his EEOC right-to-sue letter on his hostile work environment claim but did not file a new charge for termination; termination is a discrete act that constitutes an actionable adverse action and plaintiff's failure to file a new charge meant that all federal claims related to the termination are beyond the scope of the EEOC charge and were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; with respect to plaintiff's claims under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, there were no genuine issues as to whether plaintiff was still qualified to do the essential job functions of his position with or without an accommodation and whether he was terminated due to his disability, and the district court did not err in granting the employer's motion for summary judgment; with respect to plaintiff's hostile work environment claim, even if the court assumes that plaintiff linked the alleged harassment to his age or disability, the alleged harassment was not severe enough to support his hostile work environment claim; with respect to plaintiff's ADA claim for failure to accommodate his disability,the record established that he was unable to perform the essential functions of his job, with or without accommodation, and his claim necessarily fails; with respect to plaintiff's claim for ADA retaliation, plaintiff could not show "but-for"causation because he could not perform his job duties with or without accommodation.
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.