Johnson v. Midwest Division - RBH, LLC, No. 22-2922 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
In this case, the United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit examined claims by Colleen M. Johnson against her former employer, Midwest Division-RBH, LLC (Belton Regional Medical Center), her supervisor Patrick Avila, and her replacement Nicole Pasley. Johnson had been on medical leave for nine months due to heart-related issues when she informed Belton Regional that she could not give a return date. The next day, the company terminated her employment. Johnson sued under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), claiming age and disability discrimination, and also brought common law claims for emotional distress, defamation, and property damage. The district court dismissed the common law claims and granted summary judgment on the MHRA claims.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court rejected Johnson’s argument that her common law claims were not preempted by the MHRA, ruling that the MHRA provided the exclusive remedy for claims arising out of an employment relationship and that she had fraudulently joined the Missouri defendants to prevent removal. The court also found that Johnson could not establish a prima facie case of age or disability discrimination under the MHRA because she did not provide evidence that her age or disability was the “determinative influence” on her termination. Instead, the court concluded that Johnson was fired due to her refusal to provide a date when she would return from medical leave, not because of her age or disability. Finally, the court ruled that Johnson had waived her argument of constructive discharge by failing to provide meaningful legal analysis in her opposition to summary judgment.
Court Description: [Benton, Author, with Loken and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Missouri Human Rights Act. As plaintiff's common law claims for defamation, conversion and unlawful infliction of emotional distress arise out of the same factual allegations as her Missouri Human Rights Act claim, the district court did not err in finding the common law claims were preempted by the Act; plaintiff alleged a hostile work environment, based on age and disability; with respect to the age claim, she failed to provide any evidence that her age was a determinative factor in the decision to terminate her; nor can she show that her disability was the motivating factor in the termination; plaintiff failed to provide any meaningful legal analysis to support her claim of constructive discharge, and it is waived.
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.