Lakeitha Boston v. TrialCard, Inc., No. 22-2298 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff appealed rom the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in favor of TrialCard, Inc. (“TrialCard”) on employment claims she brought under Mo. Stat. Section 213.055.1 (“MHRA”), 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 (“Section 1981”), and the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiff’s “me too” evidence is likewise insufficient to establish TrialCard’s proffered reason for her termination was pretextual. This Court has noted that “me too” evidence of other discrimination victims can be relevant because “an employer’s past discriminatory policy and practice may well illustrate that the employer’s asserted reasons for disparate treatment are a pretext for intentional discrimination. Plaintiff’s “me too” evidence, however, is insufficient because she has not shown that these individuals received the same discipline under the same circumstances from the same person. Further, the court explained that Cigna repeatedly reached out to Plaintiff and her therapist about obtaining medical certification. Because Plaintiff failed to present evidence to support her FMLA claim, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of TrialCard.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Melloy, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Employment discrimination. Plaintiff lacked any direct evidence of discrimination based on disability, race, and sex, and her discrimination claims are analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas framework; under that analysis defendant offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for plaintiff's termination (violation of the company's absence-reporting rules), which plaintiff failed to show was a pretext for discrimination; with respect to plaintiff's FMLA claims, an employee may be denied leave if they do not provide required medical certification, and where plaintiff failed to provide the documentation she did not have a viable claim for entitlement to FMLA leave; plaintiff also failed to establish a causal connection between her exercise of the FMLA rights and her discharge.
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.