KANSAS CITY (LN) — U.S. District Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark on Tuesday denied in part and granted in part Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies’ motion to dismiss, allowing a former employee’s retaliation claims to survive while dismissing his age and disability discrimination counts.

The order in McKee v. Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, LLC (Case No. 4:25-cv-00737) leaves Counts 5 through 7, which allege retaliation under federal and state law, intact. Counts 1 and 2 (age discrimination), Counts 3 and 4 (disability discrimination), and Count 8 (hostile work environment) were dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiff M. McKee, 67, worked for Honeywell from 1996 until his termination in May 2024. He held the title of Quality Project Specialist, a manager-level position, and had worked a 9/80 schedule since 2016, giving him every other Friday off.

In 2022, Brad Mallen, who is approximately 20 years younger than McKee, became Senior Manager of Quality. McKee alleged that Mallen made derogatory comments about his job title and high salary and questioned why McKee did not manage people.

McKee also alleged that Mallen became aware of his hearing loss, use of hearing aids, and history of thyroid cancer. McKee claimed Mallen showed no respect for his work and failed to provide clear instructions to McKee’s team.

In January 2024, McKee told former supervisor Kelly Hass that he felt discriminated against, harassed, and was working in a hostile environment. Three weeks later, McKee was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP).

McKee alleged he satisfied the PIP objectives by April 27, 2024, but HR Generalist Morgan Foerster later told him via Microsoft Teams that the completion email was a “mistake.”

On May 1, 2024, McKee emailed Foerster and others, complaining of harassment, discrimination, and a hostile work environment. On May 14, 2024, McKee sent another email raising concerns about “targeting, bullying, discrimination, and a hostile work environment.”

Six days after that May 14 email, on May 20, 2024, McKee was terminated.

Ketchmark found that the temporal proximity between McKee’s protected activity and the adverse actions was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The judge noted that the Eighth Circuit has determined that two months or fewer can be close enough to establish causation alone.

“Here, the most recent protected activity prior to Plaintiff’s termination was on May 14, 2024, which was only six days before the termination,” Ketchmark wrote. “These two events are extremely close in time, and plausibly allege a causal connection to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.”

The judge agreed with Honeywell’s argument that McKee failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his disability claims. The court found McKee’s charge of discrimination contained only a conclusory statement that he was “perceived as being too disabled to do my job,” which was insufficient to exhaust claims for actual or perceived disability.

Even if the claims had been exhausted, Ketchmark dismissed the disability counts because McKee failed to allege facts showing his conditions substantially limited a major life activity or that Honeywell mistakenly believed he had such a limitation.

The age discrimination claims were dismissed because McKee relied primarily on the age difference between himself and Mallen. The court noted that Mallen likely belongs to the same protected class as McKee, creating an inference against discrimination.

Ketchmark also dismissed the hostile work environment claim, finding that the alleged conduct—being placed on a PIP, receiving little feedback, and not being moved to another department—did not rise to the level of severe or pervasive harassment.

McKee seeks damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and attorney fees.