because the time it took to increase the shop’s revenues precluded him from holding weekly meetings with his far-flung technicians and because he could not generate the required number of quotations unless his technicians gave him sufficient leads. Also, Theuerkauf and Ehrnsehwender readily admitted in their depositions that when they pointed to problems in Galambos’s performance in his 1995 performance evaluation and the August 1996 shop audit, they neither warned Galambos that his job was at risk nor discussed putting him on probation. It was only after he, returned from medical leave that he was told he was “on the short list of people that they were looking to get rid of,” put on probation, and then terminated. See O’Bryan v. KTTV Television, 64 F.3d 1188, 1194 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). In view of these circumstances, the Court
holding that a title vii retaliation claim was not properly before the court because although the plaintiff had not been fired when he filed his complaint the plaintiff never amended his complaint to include a claim of retaliation based on his termination holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment holding that plaintiff raised a factual dispute as to his retaliation claim where a few months after his protected activity he was subjected to unprecedented job scrutiny was required to meet brand new job performance guide lines and was given a probationary ultimatum which led directly to his termination holding that plaintiffs allegations  that he was improperly paid for appearances at arbitration proceedings that he received highly negative performance evaluations that he was harassed by being required to perform tasks outside his job description that he received shorter notice of his termination than other employees and that he was terminated in retaliation for his eeoc complaint  each state a claim upon which relief can be granted under  1981 holding that the plaintiff failed to show retaliation where there was no evidence that the employees who disciplined him knew of his protected activity