Meinelt v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
787 F. Supp. 2d 643 (2011)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Jason Meinelt (plaintiff) worked for P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc. (Changs) (defendant) as a manager of a Houston Changs restaurant. In June 2009, Meinelt was diagnosed with a brain tumor. Meinelt immediately told his supervisor, Michael Brown, informing Brown that the necessary surgery would involve a substantial recovery period. Brown immediately conveyed Meinelt’s diagnosis to Glen Piner, who oversaw Houston and Dallas Changs restaurants. Three days later, Piner terminated Meinelt. Piner claimed that the termination resulted from an audit of manager alterations to employee timecards. Changs managers often altered timecards for various reasons, such as employees forgetting to clock in or out. However, Changs had a strict policy of ensuring that employees were paid for every hour worked. Managers were told that any improper timecard alterations would result in termination. Piner claimed that his audit revealed Meinelt altered employee timecards more frequently than was normal and, from that, Piner concluded Meinelt was improperly altering timecards. Piner did not ask any employees whether Meinelt’s alterations were accurate. Meinelt denied making any improper alterations and believed he was terminated because of his brain tumor. Meinelt sued Changs, alleging that his termination violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He offered testimony from two restaurant employees attesting that his alterations were accurate. He also presented evidence that Brown had resigned from Changs due to disagreement with Changs’s treatment of Meinelt and that although Piner’s audit had subsequently revealed Brown made similar timecard alterations, Brown remained eligible for rehire. Changs moved for summary judgment, arguing that a brain tumor was not a disability and that Meinelt had failed to make a prima facie showing that his termination resulted from discrimination.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rosenthal, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 916,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 1,000 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.


