ST. LOUIS – An Eastern District of Missouri Judge has granted two motions for summary judgment in a religious discrimination case filed by a St. Louis worker.
In a June 22 order, Judge Rodney W. Sippel granted defendant city of St. Louis’ motion for summary judgment on two of three employment discrimination claims - adverse employment action and retaliation - made by plaintiff Rodney Cooper but denied a third summary judgment over allegations of a hostile work environment.
According to the opinion, Cooper, who was employed by the public parks system from 2011 to 2015 and supervised by Ricky Hahn and Roger Berry, converted his religious beliefs in 2013. After his conversion, Cooper allegedly became religiously preoccupied and began speaking about his faith daily in the lunchroom adjacent to Berry’s office.
According to the deposition, Cooper accused Berry of telling him to "shut up," which Berry denies. Two years later in 2015, Cooper was relocated to another park location, which he argues was due to his religious beliefs. Even after his relocation, Cooper alleges his was constantly threatened with being fired, excluded from overtime and called names.
That same year, Cooper filed discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Missouri Commission on Human Rights.
Sippel cited several cases, including Davison v. City of Minneapolis, Tolan v. Cotton and Diesel Machinery Inc. v. B.R. Lee Industries Inc. in his opinion.
“Because discrimination cases often depend on inferences rather than on direct evidence, summary judgment should not be granted unless the evidence could not support any reasonable inference for the nonmovant,” Sippel wrote in the order.
“Cooper offers no evidence to establish that his overtime pay or opportunities decreased when he started talking about religion or after he was relocated to Fairgrounds Park,” Sippel wrote in the order. “In contrast, the city demonstrates that Cooper worked 70.5 overtime hours in 2012, 34.5 overtime hours in 2013, and 64.5 overtime hours in 2014.”
Sippel addressed Cooper’s charge of adverse employment action, citing Richter v. Advance Auto Parts Inc.
“Retaliation claims, however, are not reasonably related to underlying discrimination claims,” Sippel wrote.
Though the judge denied Cooper’s first two claims, he deemed differently on his allegations of a hostile work environment and noted to prove the claim circumstances must “include “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance,” according to the order.
Citing Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, the judge concluded the order in Cooper's favor regarding the hostile work environment allegations.
“Nonetheless, considering all the facts in the light most favorable to Cooper, I cannot say as a matter of law that Berry did not subject Cooper to unwelcome harassment based on Berry’s religious beliefs, and that the harassment 'affected a term, condition or privilege of employment,'" Sippel wrote in the order.