Steve Tesch v. Kyndryl, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted Kyndryl, Inc.’s motion to dismiss two theories of retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act. The court held that the plaintiff’s complaint could not have been the but-for cause of his termination because it was made after the termination decision, and that alleged failures to investigate or meaningfully respond were not actionable adverse employment actions. The court dismissed those theories with prejudice but left standing the retaliation theory based on Kyndryl’s alleged failure to interview, respond to, or hire the plaintiff for positions for which he was qualified.

Holdings

1. Tesch could not establish a prima facie MHRA retaliation claim based on his termination because he complained about age discrimination only after his manager had already told him he would be terminated as part of the reduction in force; therefore, the complaint could not have been the but-for cause of the termination.
2. Tesch could not establish a prima facie MHRA retaliation claim based on Kyndryl's alleged failure to properly investigate or meaningfully respond to his age-discrimination complaint because those alleged actions did not constitute a qualifying adverse employment action, and the argument was conceded when Plaintiff failed to address it.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Tesch could state an MHRA retaliation claim based on his termination when his protected complaint was made after he had already been selected for termination.
2. Whether Kyndryl's alleged failure to properly investigate or meaningfully respond to Tesch's age-discrimination complaint constituted an adverse employment action supporting an MHRA retaliation claim.

Disposition

other