Vinh v. Express Scripts, Inc.

Background

Michael Vinh worked for Express Scripts Services Company (ESSC) from 2000 until his termination in May 2016. He became a senior project manager in 2006 or 2007. The position involved managing strategic projects, developing improvement plans, analyzing information, and communicating in writing and verbally.

ESSC used a performance-review and calibration system that ranked employees against their peers. Vinh received a "threshold" rating, the lowest rating, for 2013. He received a "target" rating for 2014, but received another "threshold" rating for 2015. The 2015 reviews identified problems involving communication, leadership, critical thinking, attention to detail, accuracy, and execution of ideas.

In mid-2015, Vinh developed neck pain and was diagnosed with complex cervical dystonia. ESSC approved intermittent leave and later approved an extended leave. When Vinh returned to work in February 2016, his doctor imposed restrictions, including a six-hour workday, limits on sitting, and permission to stand or walk periodically. The doctor's form also identified stress and visual stimulation as concerns. Vinh said he requested a standing desk, although ESSC disputed whether he made that request and his doctor did not list it as a work restriction.

ESSC placed Vinh on a 60-day performance-improvement plan called a "Success Rx" plan. The plan addressed the accuracy of operational and financial data, handling data discrepancies, and the quality and accuracy of presentations. Vinh returned to unrestricted, full-time work near the end of the plan. ESSC concluded that he had not made the necessary improvements and terminated him on May 4, 2016.

Vinh filed one lawsuit count under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, alleging disability-based discriminatory discharge and failure to provide reasonable accommodations. He withdrew a reprisal claim. The court considered ESSC's motion for summary judgment.

Discriminatory-discharge claim

The court applied the burden-shifting framework used when a plaintiff relies on circumstantial evidence of discrimination. At the initial stage, Vinh had to show that he was in the protected disability class, was minimally qualified for the position, and was replaced by a person outside the protected class.

The court found that Vinh was minimally qualified. He had the education, experience, and years of service required for the position, and the court treated his earlier years of satisfactory performance as evidence that he met the minimum objective qualifications. But the court found that Vinh offered no evidence that a nondisabled person replaced him. The court therefore concluded that he failed to establish a required part of his initial case.

The court also held that ESSC would win even if Vinh had established that initial case. ESSC identified poor performance and Vinh's failure to complete the Success Rx plan as legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination. The court found that Vinh did not present evidence creating a genuine dispute over whether those reasons were a pretext, or false reasons used to hide disability discrimination. The court rejected arguments that the performance plan ignored his restrictions or that his supervisor intentionally prevented him from succeeding, noting record evidence that ESSC considered his restrictions and gave him feedback.

Failure-to-accommodate claim

For the accommodation claim, the court used a different burden-shifting analysis. Vinh had to show that he was disabled, could perform the job's essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability, and that ESSC knew about the disability but failed to reasonably accommodate it. ESSC did not dispute that Vinh was disabled or that it knew about his disability.

The court held that Vinh did not show that he was a qualified disabled person who could perform the essential functions of the senior project manager position with reasonable accommodation. Communication, leadership, critical thinking, analysis, and managing strategic initiatives were among the essential functions or qualifications identified by the court. The court found that Vinh's performance problems existed before his disability began affecting his work, including during the first half of 2015, when Vinh said his disability was not interfering with his job.

The court also rejected Vinh's proposed accommodations. It found that Vinh did not explain how reducing stress or visual stimulation would allow him to perform the job's essential functions, and his doctor testified that the other restrictions on the return-to-work form were intended to address those concerns. The court found that Vinh did not show how a standing desk would have made him qualified to perform the job, and the medical evidence did not establish that a standing desk was necessary or helpful. The court also rejected reassignment because Vinh identified no vacant position and did not show that he sought one.

Separately, the court held that ESSC provided the accommodations required by Vinh's doctor. Vinh acknowledged that ESSC agreed to follow the return-to-work restrictions, and his doctor testified that ESSC complied with them. The court stated that ESSC was not required to provide Vinh's preferred accommodation when the accommodations it provided were reasonable. The court did not reach whether any proposed accommodation would have imposed an undue hardship on ESSC.

Disposition

Judge Susan Richard Nelson granted ESSC's motion for summary judgment on Vinh's discriminatory-discharge claim and granted the motion for summary judgment on his failure-to-accommodate claim. The order states that ESSC's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted and directs that judgment be entered accordingly.