Summary
The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal and summary judgment for Union Pacific in an age discrimination suit under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). The court held that the non-diverse defendant was fraudulently joined because the complaint failed to state a colorable aiding-and-abetting claim, requiring only conclusory allegations. It also held that the plaintiff's constructive discharge claim was not administratively exhausted because it was not reasonably related to the administrative charge, which did not allege constructive discharge. Finally, summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim was proper because the alleged harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive and was not clearly linked to age.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in denying Henson's motion to remand and dismissing his aiding-and-abetting claims against McDaniel on the basis of fraudulent joinder.
- Whether the district court erred in granting Union Pacific's motion for judgment on the pleadings on Henson's constructive discharge claim for failure to administratively exhaust.
- Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Henson's hostile work environment claim.
Holdings
- The district court properly dismissed the aiding-and-abetting claims against McDaniel on the basis of fraudulent joinder because Henson failed to make a colorable claim that McDaniel directly oversaw or was actively involved in discrimination.
- The district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings because Henson failed to administratively exhaust his constructive discharge claim; the claim was not reasonably related to the allegations in his administrative charge.
- The district court properly granted summary judgment because Henson failed to present evidence of age-based harassment that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment.
Key quotations
“I felt I was being set up to fail so that when I did the company could terminate me. Furthermore, the company was conveniently assigning older employees to jobs that were physically demanding, all in their [sic] plan to set us up to fail and terminate us. *** We were not included nor [sic] considered as part of the team. Again, the company was pushing older employees out. *** The continuing pattern of the above events are [sic] wholly directed as a means into a forced retirement and a termination of a loyal 38 years of distinguish [sic] service. There is no foreseeable trend that indicates that the Union Pacific Railroad values my extensive knowledge and experience in favor of eliminating my position. The current climate/environment of the company is hostile towards workers like me, older, and it is in favor of the younger generation workers. We, the older employees, are constantly being set up for failure and in [sic] working environment that offers no means of success, except to accept the conditions of career surrender, which I am not yet willing to do.” (at 6-7)
“affirmatively act[ing] to aid the primary tortfeasor by giving substantial assistance or encouragement to him” (at 3)
“An employee who suffered discrimination severe enough that a reasonable person in his shoes would resign might nevertheless force himself to tolerate that discrimination for a period of time.” (at 7)
“neither state nor federal law prohibits an employer from making retirement inquiries reasonable under the circumstances” (at 10)
Factual background
Randy Henson worked for Union Pacific Railroad Company for over 30 years. In October 2017, he filed a charge with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights and EEOC alleging hostile work environment, age discrimination, and retaliation. He retired in August 2018 at age 63. The charge alleged that older employees were being set up to fail and pushed out. Specifically, Henson alleged that manager Foster B. McDaniel told him 'don't worry, this job will be yours as long as you want it. After you retire the job will be eliminated.' Other incidents included a manager's comment about retirement and a photo of an electric chair with Henson's face.
Procedural history
Henson filed suit in Missouri state court alleging age discrimination, constructive discharge, and hostile work environment claims under the MHRA. Union Pacific removed to federal court based on diversity, claiming McDaniel was fraudulently joined. The district court granted McDaniel's motion to dismiss, denied Henson's motion to remand, granted Union Pacific's motion for judgment on the pleadings on the constructive discharge claim, and granted summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim.