ST. LOUIS — A federal judge has thrown out a former Mallinckrodt Pharma security monitor's discrimination case against the company, saying the plaintiff had one job and that he failed to do it doesn't amount to discrimination.
In his 12-page memorandum and order issued April 27, U.S. District Court Judge Ronnie L. White granted Mallinckrodt's motion for summary judgment. White also took issue with plaintiff's Lawrence M. Lee arguments that White said were "only indirect, not direct, evidence of discrimination."
Lee was fired after he failed to close a gate during a controlled substance move "which was one of his job duties," White stated in his memorandum and order.
| mallinckrodt.com/about/news-and-media
"Thus, Mallinckrodt has provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for terminating Lee," the memorandum and order continued. "Because Mallinckrodt articulates a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Lee, the burden shifts to Lee to show that the proffered justification is merely a pretext for discrimination."
Lee, who admitted he failed to close the gate, did not show that his firing was a pretext for discrimination, White wrote in his memorandum and order.
Lee filed suit in December 2018 against Mallinckrodt Enterprises, which does business as Mallinckrodt Pharma, a UK-headquartered pharmaceuticals company that maintains a corporate shared principal office in St. Louis.
Lee's allegations against Mallinckrodt stemmed from an October 2017 controlled substance move between buildings, a process in which Lee, who is Caucasian, and four other three other employees, who are African American participated. Lee, however, left the gate open thinking one of the other employees - who were not security monitors - would close it, leaving the building unsecured, according to the background portion of the memorandum and opinion.
Lee was subsequently fired for "leaving a complex unsecure" but none of his co-workers who participated in the move were disciplined, the memorandum and order said.
Lee had worked for the company for about eight years and had "performed his job satisfactorily" in that time, his lawsuit said.
In his 10-page lawsuit, Lee claimed discrimination because of his race and gender, the later allegation based on one of the other undisciplined co-workers being female, and sought more than $75,000 in damages.
White said Lee wasn't trying to "correct a discriminatory wrong, but to challenge Mallinckrodt's decisions regarding whom to discipline and to what extent," and that it wasn't the court's job to join Lee in that endeavor.
"The Court cannot second-guess Mallinckrodt's decision to terminate Lee for failing to perform his job duties simply because Lee had 'reasons' for leaving the gate open," White said in his memorandum and opinion. "Therefore, the Court holds that Lee has not established pretext based upon his belief that he had reasons for leaving open the gate."