McConnell v. Anixter, Inc., No. 18-3230 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Anixter on plaintiff's claim that the company violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), by discriminating and retaliating against him on the basis of his prior service in the military and exercise of rights protected under the statute.
The court held that plaintiff failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact that his military status was a motivating factor in Anixter's decision to fire him. The court noted that most of Anixter's actions that plaintiff claimed violated USERRA were not independently actionable under the statute. The court held that the order for plaintiff to perform some manual labor did not exceed his disability restriction and was therefore not materially adverse; Anixter's denial of plaintiff's request for a service dog was not sufficiently adverse; and defendant's discharge from Anixter four days after requesting PTSD accommodation did not create sufficient evidence of a genuine dispute of material fact regarding Anixter's unlawful motivation to fire plaintiff. Rather, the undisputed evidence indicated that plaintiff's temperament played a part in Anixter's decision to fire him, which was consistent with the company's explanation that it fired him due to this disagreement.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Kelly and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. Certain condescending and disparaging remarks about plaintiff's military service were not actionable under the USERRA; order to perform some manual labor did not exceed plaintiff's disability restriction and was not materially adverse; denial of request to use a service dog was not sufficiently adverse to be actionable; the burden is on plaintiff to show his military status was a motivating factor in defendant's decision to terminate him and plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to make a threshold showing that his status was a motivating factor in his termination.
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.