Meinelt v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc.

787 F. Supp. 2d 643 (2011)

From our private database of 47,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

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)

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…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 916,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 916,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,300 briefs - keyed to 1,000 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership