McKey v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 19-2638 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of U.S. Bank's motion for summary judgment in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging that the Bank fired her because of her age and in retaliation for reporting discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The court held that the Bank articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason to terminate plaintiff with adequate support in the record: performance issues. The court also held that plaintiff failed to show that the Bank's explanation for her firing is mere pretext for intentional discrimination. In this case, none of the employees that she compares herself to are similarly situated in all relevant respects, and the evidence does not present a change in basis for firing her. Furthermore, plaintiff offered no evidence to support causation for her retaliation claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Finally, the Bank's decision not to hire plaintiff in another position was not based on a discriminatory and retaliatory motive, and plaintiff failed to establish pretext.
Court Description: [Kobes, Author, with Gruender and Wollman, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. Plaintiff failed to show that the legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds defendant offered for her termination (work performance issues) were a pretext for age discrimination; the employees to whom she sought to compare herself were not similarly situated in all relevant respects and her argument that defendant changed the basis for her termination is not supported by the record; there was no evidence to support plaintiff's claim that her termination was causally related to a Minnesota Human Rights Act report; defendant established legitimate, non-retaliatory grounds for its decision not to hire plaintiff for other jobs and plaintiff failed to show the stated grounds were pretexts.
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.