Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—E.D. Mo.: Food manufacturing worker could not show that heart, joint conditions constituted disability, (Apr 15, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

He had three heart attacks during his employment with Kraft Heinz.

An employee of Kraft Heinz Foods Company, fired for accumulating too many points under the company’s attendance policy, failed to show that his heart and sacroiliac joint conditions constituted disabilities under the Missouri Human Rights Act, a federal district court in Missouri found. Although he had three heart attacks during his employment with the employer and is presently unable to perform his job duties as an operations technician, the employee failed to controvert the employer’s evidence that he acknowledged he did not consider himself disabled, his treating physicians responded that he was not disabled when they completed forms for him, and he never sought any accommodation (Buczek-Booth v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co., No. 2:24CV97 HEA (E.D. Mo. Apr. 13, 2026)).

Conditions. The employee, according to the court, had three heart attacks during his employment with Kraft Heinz. They occurred between the start of his employment and October 2019. On October 8, 2019, he fainted at work and was taken to the hospital. Thereafter, he had surgery to install a pacemaker.

On November 6, 2019, the employee was released to return to work with restrictions of no lifting greater than 10 pounds and no raising his arm over his head or behind his back for six weeks. On January 15, 2020, he was released to return to work with no restrictions. Following his pacemaker surgery, he has not lost consciousness or had chest pain, according to the court.

“[E]pisodes.” Since October 2019, however, he has experienced “episodes” in which the lower chambers of his heart go into arrhythmia. When he has such an episode, he stops what he is doing to sit down until the episode passes. He had approximately three episodes a month requiring him to sit down during his shifts, and Kraft Heinz allowed him to sit down for as much time as he needed. Kraft Heinz also allowed him to sit down and rest when he had back pain.

Attendance policy. Kraft Heinz maintains a no-fault attendance policy. Under the policy, any absence is considered an “occurrence” except absences for expressly stated reasons, such as absences due to on-the-job injuries and illnesses, absences for leave under the FMLA, and absences covered by state or local sick leave laws or the ADA. Appropriate documentation and/or preapproval of absences is required to avoid an occurrence being assessed.

Attendance is tracked by occurrences incurred on a rolling 12-month basis. An occurrence results when an employee is absent from work for a partial or full day, is tardy, leaves work early, or leaves and returns during their shift.

The attendance policy also states that absences for two or more consecutive working days require a medical doctor’s release to return to work if the employee would like the absences grouped into one occurrence. Employees will be suspended, pending termination, after 13 total occurrences.

Physician’s questionnaires. The employee provided Kraft Heinz with a medical questionnaire completed by his cardiologist, dated November 7, 2019. In response to the question “Does [Plaintiff] have a physical or mental disability that limits one or more major life activities?” his cardiologist answered “No.”

Later, following joint surgery, the employee provided a medical questionnaire completed by his surgeon dated March 23, 2023. In response to the question “Does patient have a physical or mental disability that limits one or more major life activity?” the surgeon answered “No.”

Motorcycle accident and leave. On October 30, 2021, the employee was involved in a motorcycle accident. From October 30, 2021, until December 20, 2021, he took a leave of absence due to injuries suffered in the accident and to take care of his wife due to the injuries she suffered in the accident as well.

Lifting restriction. On June 15, 2022, the employee provided Kraft Heinz with a doctor’s note from his primary care physician that said he should not lift over 15 pounds and should not engage in repetitive lifting and requested the company allow him to take breaks often to sit down. Kraft Heinz complied with those restrictions.

The employee provided Kraft Heinz with other doctor’s notes in 2022 related to lifting restrictions and the need to take breaks to sit down, and when he had lifting restrictions, Kraft Heinz complied with them. The company was “very helpful in accommodating those restrictions and had no problem with the restrictions,” according to the court. “Kraft Heinz employees looked out for him and would tell him not to lift heavy items when he had lifting restrictions.”

Attendance issues. On July 22, 2022, the employee received an attendance status notification, stating his attendance record indicated that on July 7, 2022, he had reached termination of his employment in accordance with the attendance policy. However, Kraft Heinz did not fire him at the time.

Suspension and discharge. On August 18, 2023, however, HR prepared Suspension Pending Termination documentation for him. The documentation noted that he had accrued 15 attendance points in the previous 12 months–two more points than the threshold for termination under the attendance policy. Following some back-and-forth with HR, he was fired due to his violation of the attendance policy on September 28, 2023.

The employee did not submit a written request for review of his attendance occurrences, nor did he appeal Kraft Heinz’s decision to terminate his employment by engaging in its “Issue Resolution Process.” At the time his employment ended, he did not have any lifting or other restrictions.

Kraft Heinz, the court further observed, has fired other employees with no known disabilities at the same location for violating its attendance policy.

Lawsuit and motion for summary judgment. The employee brought a pro se suit against Kraft Heinz alleging disability discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). In response, the employer moved for summary judgment.

MHRA. The court initially observed that the MHRA makes it unlawful for an employer “to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s... disability[.]” A protected “disability” under the MHRA, in turn, is “a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of a person's major life activities, being regarded as having such an impairment, or a record of having such an impairment, which with or without reasonable accommodation does not interfere with performing the job....”

No violation established. The employee, according to the court, failed to adequately establish the elements of disability discrimination under the MHRA. He alleged that he is disabled because of his heart and sacroiliac conditions, but he failed to controvert the employer’s evidence that he himself acknowledged he did not consider himself disabled. His treating physicians responded that he was not disabled when they completed forms, he never sought any accommodation, and he never advised Kraft Heinz that he suffered from an ailment that substantially limited a major life activity, said the court. “Nowhere in the record does Plaintiff present any facts regarding how his conditions substantially limit a major life activity, as the MHRA requires.”

The employer’s motion for summary judgment was accordingly granted.

The case is No. 2:24CV97 HEA.

Judge: Autrey, H.

Attorneys: Anthony Buczek-Booth, pro se. Anna Joyce Laughlin (Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart) for Kraft Heinz Foods Co.

Companies: Kraft Heinz Foods Co.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge StateLawClaims MissouriNews