Kathleen M. Roche v. St. Lukes Shawnee

Kathleen Roche appeals the district court's1 grant of summary judgment on her
disability discrimination and rehabilitation claims against her employer, Saint Lukes
Shawnee Mission Health Systems (Saint Lukes) based on the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.780,
the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, and Missouri's worker's
compensation law. We affirm.

U.S.C. § 794, the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.780,
the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, and Missouri's worker's
compensation law. We affirm.

The district court did not err in dismissing Roche's retaliation claims. Roche
failed to establish that she engaged in any protected activity. Keil v. Select
Artificials, Inc., 169 F.3d 1131, 1136 (8th Cir. 1999) (stating prima facie elements for
retaliation). The district court also did not err in dismissing Roche's FMLA claims.
Roche failed to demonstrate that her elective outpatient eye surgery was a "serious
health condition," entitling her to FMLA protections. See Austin v. Haaker, 76 F.
Supp. 2d 1213, 1220-21 (D. Kan. 1999) (noting the limited instances when the FMLA applies and defining a "serious health condition"). Finally, the district court did not
err in dismissing Roche's retaliation claim for making a worker's compensation claim,
where the filing of the claim occurred five years prior to her termination.
See Hansome v. Northwestern Cooperage Co., 679 S.W.2d 273, 275 (Mo. 1984)
(stating prima facie elements for worker's compensation retaliation).

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the court's opinion free.

Affirmed

Unavailable

Unavailable

Reported by SP.