Shirrell v. St. Francis Med. Ctr., No. 14-2594 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseSt. Francis hired Shirrell, who is Jewish, as a nurse in 1995. Shirrell resigned in 2000. In 2001, St. Francis re-hired Shirrell. In early 2012, Miller, who is not Jewish, commented to a co-worker that she was going to try to “Jew down” a seller to a lower price. Shirrell informed her supervisor, who talked to Miller, posted a copy of the harassment policy, and sent an email reminding nurses to be careful with their words and actions. Six weeks later, Shirrell informed her supervisor that her work environment had become hostile, alleging that co-workers gave her the cold shoulder and that Miller accused Shirrell of trying to get Miller in trouble. St. Francis later promoted Miller, who brought two patient complaints concerning Shirrell to the attention of her supervisor. By late May 2012, Shirrell had accumulated five unscheduled absences within a 12-month period. Subsequent incidents were described as reluctance, disinterest, or neglect in carrying out responsibilities. Based on Shirrell’s accumulate disciplinary points, her employment was terminated. She filed suit, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the Missouri Human Rights Act. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant; St. Francis terminated Shirrell pursuant to policy for accumulation of disciplinary points.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Loken, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Employment discrimination. Plaintiff failed to show a causal connection between her complaint about discrimination and her termination and that failure was fatal to her Missouri Human Rights Act claim; nor did she show that her religion was a contributing factor to the termination; with respect to Title VII religious discrimination, plaintiff failed to show that any non-members of her class were treated differently or that the decision maker was biased against her; plaintiff was terminated for disciplinary reasons and not in retaliation for her single complaint of religious discrimination.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.