Schrammen v. ConAgra Foods, Inc
Filing
80
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright on 6/11/2018. (TJB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Terrance Schrammen,
Case No. 16-cv-2999 (WMW/DTS)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
ConAgra Foods Inc.,
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on the April 12, 2018 Report and Recommendation
(R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz. (Dkt. 74.) The R&R
recommends granting Defendant ConAgra Foods Inc.’s motion for summary judgment and
denying Plaintiff Terrance Schrammen’s motion for relief from a judgment or order.
Schrammen filed timely objections to the R&R.1 For the reasons addressed below, the
Court overrules Schrammen’s objections and adopts the R&R.
BACKGROUND2
Schrammen commenced this lawsuit alleging that ConAgra unlawfully terminated
his employment in retaliation for Schrammen raising safety concerns with ConAgra and
for filing a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry. ConAgra
moves for summary judgment, contending that it terminated Schrammen’s employment
Because of a filing error, Schrammen’s objections were not electronically filed until
May 2, 2018, even though Schrammen hand-delivered his objections to the Clerk of Court
on April 24, 2018.
1
2
Additional relevant factual background is addressed in the R&R.
because of Schrammen’s insubordination.
As insubordination is a legitimate,
non-retaliatory reason for ConAgra’s decision to end Schrammen’s employment, the R&R
determines that Schrammen must present evidence that ConAgra’s rationale is a pretext for
retaliation. The R&R recommends granting summary judgment in favor of ConAgra
because Schrammen does not present evidence establishing a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether he was fired in retaliation for engaging in a protected activity.
ANALYSIS
Schrammen objects to the R&R’s recommendation to grant ConAgra’s motion for
summary judgment, arguing that ConAgra fabricated certain dates related to his
termination as well as instances of his purported insubordination. The Court reviews these
objections de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); LR 72.2(b)(3);
Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
Summary judgment is proper when the record establishes that there is “no genuine
dispute as to any material fact” and the moving party is “entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court
considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, drawing all
reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. See Windstream Corp. v. Da Gragnano, 757
F.3d 798, 802-03 (8th Cir. 2014). When asserting that a fact is genuinely disputed, the
nonmoving party must cite “particular parts of materials in the record” that support the
assertion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A); accord Krenik v. Cty. of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957
(8th Cir. 1995).
2
To defeat ConAgra’s motion for summary judgment, Schrammen must establish a
genuine factual dispute that his firing was pretextual by relying on evidence that both
discredits ConAgra’s asserted justification for his firing and creates a reasonable inference
that animus motivated ConAgra’s action. See Pedersen v. Bio-Med. Applications of Minn.,
775 F.3d 1049, 1055 (8th Cir. 2015); Liles v. C.S. McCrossan, Inc., 851 F.3d 810, 818 (8th
Cir. 2017) (explaining the burden-shifting framework for analyzing claims alleging
retaliation). Although Schrammen asserts that ConAgra fabricated certain information
about his firing, Schrammen does not support his contentions with evidence. For this
reason, Schrammen does not demonstrate that a genuine dispute of material fact exists that
discredits ConAgra’s proffered justification for his firing. See, e.g., Beyer v. Firstar Bank,
N.A., 447 F.3d 1106, 1108 (8th Cir. 2006) (affirming summary judgment because plaintiff
did not submit affidavits or other evidence to support plaintiff’s contentions); see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) (requiring nonmoving party to cite “particular parts of materials in
the record” that establish a genuine dispute of material fact). Accordingly, the Court
overrules Schrammen’s objections to the R&R.
The Court also reviews for clear error the portions of the R&R to which no
objections have been made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 1983 advisory committee note;
Grinder, 73 F.3d at 795. Having completed its review, the Court concludes that the R&R
is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
ORDER
3
Based on the foregoing analysis and all of the files, records and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff
Terrence
Schrammen’s
objections
to
the
Report
and
Recommendation, (Dkt. 75), are OVERRULED;
2.
The April 12, 2018 Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 74), is ADOPTED;
3.
Defendant ConAgra Foods Inc.’s motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. 58),
is GRANTED; and
4.
Plaintiff Terrance Schrammen’s motion for relief from a judgment or order,
(Dkt. 70), is DENIED AS MOOT.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: June 11, 2017
s/Wilhelmina M. Wright
Wilhelmina M. Wright
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?