United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant Rafco Clean,
LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 24) Plaintiff
Jennifer Sandbach opposes the motion. (ECF No. 29) After
careful consideration, the Court grants Defendant's
motion and enters summary judgment in Defendant's favor.
Rafco Clean, LLC is a janitorial company that provides
cleaning and maintenance services for commercial properties.
(Def. Rafco Clean, LLC's Statement of Uncontroverted
Material Facts in Supp. of Its Mot. for Summ. J.
("SUMF") ¶ 1, ECF No. 24-1) Plaintiff Jennifer
Sandbach began her employment with Defendant in May 2015 as a
day porter, tasked with cleaning and general building upkeep.
(Id. at ¶¶ 2-3) Andre Logan was Plaintiffs
immediate supervisor, and Brian Gerkens was her second-level
manager. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5)
14, 2017, Defendant terminated Plaintiffs employment.
(Id. at ¶ 35) The termination notice
specifically cited the following attendance violations over
the preceding ninety days: six absences; thirty-seven
instances of tardiness, which were defined as being more than
seven minutes late; and twenty-four instances of leaving work
early. (Id. at ¶¶ 35-36)
January 10, 2018, Plaintiff dual filed charges of
discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC") and the Missouri Commission on
Human Rights ("MCHR"). (Pet. for Damages ¶ 5,
ECF No. 5) She received right to sue notices from the EEOC on
March 19, 2018 and the MCHR on May 17, 2018. (Id. at
¶¶ 6-7) In June 2018, Plaintiff initiated this
civil action against Defendant in state court asserting
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, etseq.,
and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), Mo. Rev. Stat.
§ 213.010 etseq. (Id. at 1 & 5) Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant's stated reason for terminating
her employment was false and a pretext for discrimination
based on Gerkens's perception that Plaintiff was disabled
because of her health impairments, which she asserts were the
cause of her attendance issues. (Id. at ¶ 18)
removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1367, and 1441(a). (ECF No. 1) In
the-instant motion, Defendant argues it is entitled to
summary judgment with respect to both claims of
discrimination. (ECF No. 24) Plaintiff opposes the motion.
(ECF No. 29)
Court may grant a motion for summary judgment if "the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v.
Citrate, Ml U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Torgerson v. City
of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011). The
substantive law determines which facts are critical and which
are irrelevant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Only disputes over facts that might
affect the outcome will properly preclude summary judgment.
Id. Summary judgment is not proper if the evidence
is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party. Id.
moving party always bears the burden of informing the Court
of the basis of its motion. Celotex Corp., Ml U.S.
at 323. Once the moving party discharges this burden, the
nonmoving party must set forth specific facts demonstrating
that there is a dispute as to a genuine issue of material
fact, not the "mere existence of some alleged factual
dispute." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Anderson, 477
U.S. at 248. The nonmoving party may not rest upon mere
allegations or denials of his pleading. Id.
passing on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view
the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,
and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.
Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 331. The Court's
function is not to weigh the evidence but to determine
whether there is a genuine issue for trial.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. "Credibility
determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing
of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions,
not those of a judge." Torgerson, 643 F.3d at
1042 (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods.,
Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000)).
moves for summary judgment by arguing that Plaintiff has
failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination
under either the ADA or MHRA, that it had a legitimate and
non-discriminatory reason for terminating her employment, and
that Plaintiff has not shown that reason was pretextual.