Claudette Clement Emile sued Triumph Foods, LLC in the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Missouri, raising claims of race discrimination, national origin/color discrimination, retaliation, disability discrimination, and workers’ compensation retaliation, all with hostile work environment allegations. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Triumph Foods on all counts, and Emile appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Factual Overview
Emile, a Haitian-American female whose primary language is Creole, began working for Triumph Foods in 2014. She alleged that in June 2017, she was denied a restroom break, causing her to urinate on herself, which led to bladder issues requiring surgery. After B.L. became her supervisor in May 2021, Emile claimed she was repeatedly denied timely restroom breaks despite having medical restrictions and a doctor’s note dated June 24, 2021, requiring accommodation for her condition.
On August 10, 2021, Emile requested an emergency bathroom break that B.L. allegedly delayed, causing her to urinate on herself again. On November 18, 2021, she filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights. On May 18, 2022, Emile alleged B.L. delayed another emergency bathroom break request, causing her to defecate on herself. She filed a second Charge of Discrimination on June 16, 2022.
Emile alleged she was the only non-Hispanic employee on her line and was treated differently than others who could use the restroom without specific permission. She also claimed that B.L.’s boss, Manager L, told her directly that “he did not like black people.” Emile resigned on November 8, 2022, claiming the conditions had become intolerable due to the company’s repeated refusal to accommodate her needs.
Triumph filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Emile’s claims were untimely, that the bathroom break delays/denials did not constitute adverse employment actions, and that Emile failed to establish discrimination or retaliation.
Legal Analysis
Timeliness of Claims
The court agreed that the 2017 incident, standing alone, was time-barred under Section 213.111.1, which requires claims to be filed within two years. However, the court held that the 2017 incident could be used as background evidence in support of timely claims. The court found that Emile’s petition was timely as to the November 18, 2021 Charge of Discrimination.
Adverse Employment Action:
The court found genuine issues of material fact as to whether the delay/denial of restroom breaks constituted adverse employment actions. While Triumph characterized these as isolated incidents, Emile presented evidence that the denials were ongoing and resulted in humiliating incidents where she lost control of her bladder and bowels. The court noted that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that these incidents adversely affected the terms, conditions, and privileges of Emile’s employment.
The court also found disputed facts regarding Triumph’s claim that any delays were for legitimate, non-discriminatory purposes (finding someone to replace Emile on the production line). Evidence showed that B.L. could personally relieve Emile, and that an HR document stated Emile only needed to notify management before leaving her line in emergencies, not wait for permission.
Hostile Work Environment:
The court found genuine issues of material fact as to whether Emile was subjected to an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment based on the same evidence of ongoing bathroom break denials that resulted in humiliating incidents.
Race/National Origin Discrimination:
The court found that Emile provided sufficient evidence that she was the only non-Hispanic employee on her line and was treated differently than others regarding bathroom breaks. She also presented evidence that Manager L made discriminatory comments about Black people. The court held these disputed facts could support a finding that Emile’s race/national origin was a motivating factor in adverse employment actions.
Disability Discrimination:
The court rejected Triumph’s argument that Emile’s only claim related to an upset stomach in May 2022. Emile presented evidence of an ongoing medical condition requiring accommodation through her doctor’s note requesting additional bathroom breaks. The court found material facts in dispute as to whether Emile had a qualifying disability under the MHRA and whether Triumph regarded her as having an impairment.
Retaliation:
The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Emile engaged in protected activity when she complained to HR about being denied bathroom breaks and when she filed her Charges of Discrimination. The court also found disputed facts as to whether there was a causal connection between her protected activities and adverse employment actions.
The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment on Emile’s claims of race/national origin discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation under the MHRA, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Schrag on Law 