Share
In Price v. S-B Power Tool a.k.a. Skil Corp., the Eighth Circuit applied the "McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting" analysis in an ADA case and held that the plaintiff (1) failed to show a prima facie case of discrimination, or (2) that Skil's proferred legitimate non-discriminatory reason was pretextual.
In 1984, Skil hired Price as a hand-held power tool assembler. Price suffered from epilepsy or a seizure disorder of which Skil was aware. Skil admitted that Price was able to perform her assembly job well on the days that she reported to work. Price had attendance problems throughout her employment at Skil however, and had received a number of verbal and written warnings. Skil's attendance policy required that employee absentee rates not exceed three percent. Generally, an employee who violated the policy was given a verbal warning for the first offense, a written warning for the second offense, and was terminated for the third offense. Skil granted leaves of absence, which were not counted in determining the absentee rate, to employees who requested them. Price was aware of this policy and had taken leaves of absence for personal, medical, and pregnancy reasons.
Price was discharged on April 19, 1993, after failing to report to work on April 12-13, and after receiving written warnings on March 1 and January 11. She was told that the reason for her termination was excessive absences. Price sued Skil alleging that she had been discharged due to her epileptic condition. The district court granted Skil's Motion for Summary Judgment and Price appealed.
The Eighth Circuit noted that the ADA prohibits employment discrimination "against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual." For claims of intentional discrimination, the proper standard of review was the "McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting" approach. This method requires a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Then, the burden shifts to the employer to establish a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. If able to do so, the burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the employer's proffered reason is pretextual and that intentional discrimination was the true reason for the defendant's actions.
The Eighth Circuit noted that to establish a prima facie case under the ADA, a plaintiff must show (1) that she is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA, (2) that she is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job (either with or without reasonable accommodation), and (3) that she has suffered an adverse employment action under circumstances from which an inference of unlawful discrimination arises. The court held that Price did not prove a prima facie case because the record did not show that her termination occurred under circumstances that would permit an inference of discrimination. The court added that Price asserted that she was treated differently from other similarly situated non-disabled employees, but her claim was not supported by her own evidence.
The Eighth Circuit found that summary judgment was appropriate even if Price had established a prima facie case, since Skil offered a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for her dismissal (excessive absences) and Price failed to show any evidence of pretext. Thus, the court affirmed summary judgment for Skil.
Price v. S-B Power Tool a.k.a. Skil Corp., 75 F.3d 362 (8th Cir. 1996).