to redistribute Falczynski’s work to the other data entry operator. The other data operator testified, however, that she had difficulty completing the work normally performed by Falczynski, in addition to performing her normal assignment. Rode also had to pull an associate off of her position to fill in when Falczynski was gone. This arrangement in turn disrupted the associate’s ability to perform her regular assignment. Further, Rode testified that in May and June 1990, Falczynski was absent at a critical time, during the final weeks of the month when the department is responsible for closing accounts. As her work had to be completed by other employees, Falczynski’s chronic absenteeism plainly prevented her from performing the essential functions of her job. Indeed 7 (8th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Santiago v. Temple Univ., 739 F.Supp. 974,
holding that res judicata properly barred claims based on an employers decision to terminate an employee because the termination was not a fresh act of discrimination rather it was the same decision not to allow the employee to return to work that the employee had challenged previously holding that the district court erred in failing to consider all of the employers proffered evidence of legitimate business reasons for the plaintiffs termination holding employer cannot lawfully make the signing of an employment agreement which contains an unenforceable covenant not to compete a condition of continued employment an employers termination of an employee who refuses to sign such an agreement constitutes a wrongful termination in violation of public policy holding that although the plaintiff was a problem employee and eventually may have been terminated for that reason the immediate cause of his termination was the osha report holding attendance problem was a legitimate basis for an employers termination of an employee