Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : In Their Opinion : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

OVERLY v. KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (November 10, 2011)

Krysten Overly was a financial advisor at KeyBank in central Indiana. Rick Bielecki became her immediate supervisor in early 2007 but their interaction was limited because of his broad regional supervisory obligations. One day, while he was working with her, he observed that she was using procedures that were not in compliance with the Bank's policies. After an investigation, the compliance office recommended her termination. With Bielecki’s and his supervisor’s support, Overly escaped with a warning and a small fine. Overly complained to the Human Resources Department about the disciplinary action as well as some sexist remarks she alleged were made by Bielecki. The Bank reorganized beginning in 2007 and almost tripled the number of financial advisors nationwide. Bielecki added one advisor to Overly's region and realigned branch bank assignments. Overly registered a complaint with KeyBank's CEO. She cited the disciplinary action and the sexist remarks, as well as the loss of territory. The Bank conduct an investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of discrimination or retaliation. Overly submitted her resignation to Bielecki on October 1, 2007. Upon receipt of the resignation, Bielecki applauded, pushed her toward the door, and yelled "Good Riddance Bitch." Overly filed suit alleging hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and gender discrimination. Judge Barker (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment in KeyBank's favor. Overly appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Evans (who, as a result of his death, took no part in the decision) and Williams and District Judge Conley affirmed. The Court first addressed the hostile work environment claim and concluded that Overly's work conditions did not meet the "severe or pervasive" requirement. Bielecki called her "cutie" five or 10 times, referred to her "pretty face," and made her leave her purse outside of a meeting room. None of this was threatening, it did not occur very frequently, and it did not unreasonably interfere with her work. The Court conceded that adding the disciplinary incidents to the mix might approach the actionable level, but declined to do so because there was no evidence that the discipline was related to her gender. Furthermore, she admitted the noncompliant activities. Likewise, the territory realignment was not shown to be related to gender. The Court acknowledged that there was evidence of gender bias after her resignation. But Bielecki's conduct and remarks after receiving her resignation cannot support a hostile work environment claim. The Court quickly dispensed with her constructive discharge claim since it imposes a higher standard than the hostile work environment claim - which it had just rejected. The Court also rejected the gender discrimination claim, again refusing to consider the resignation remarks as direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination because of the timing of those remarks. Finally, the Court rejected her Title VII retaliation claim. Her complaint to the Bank does constitute protected activity but there is no evidence in the record of a causal link between the activity and Bielecki's conduct.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

EGAN v. FREEDOM BANK (October 6, 2011)

Freedom Bank president Greg Dempsey hired Belinda Egan as a vice president in July 2007. According to her complaint, Egan met with Don Burton, a bank director, at his request several times over the next few months. At one of those meetings in September, Burton told Egan that he thought she should be the next bank president and that the directors had the power to fire anyone on the management team. He then made a sexual advance. Egan left but later discussed the conversation with Dempsey and Human Resources. Burton resigned shortly thereafter. The bank hired Dave Barajas to replace Greg Dempsey as president. According to Dempsey, Barajas told him that he had heard that Egan had done something for which she should have been fired. Barajas took over in December and hired four new employees over the next several months. Then, in February of 2008, Barajas told Egan that he had eliminated her position. Egan brought suit for retaliation, hostile work environment, and gender discrimination. Judge Reinhard (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the Bank. Egan appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Manion, Williams, and Hamilton reversed and remanded. The Court first addressed the retaliation claim, which Egan prosecuted under the direct method of proof. The parties agreed that she engaged in statutorily protected activity and suffered an adverse action. The only issue was whether she introduced sufficient evidence of a causal connection between her report of Burton's sexual advances and her termination. Although the Court found the Bank's explanation plausible, it concluded that it was not the only plausible explanation. Several things supported Egan's contention: Barajas' remark to Dempsey, the fact that Egan’s was the only position eliminated while four other positions were filled, and the fact that there were no complaints about her performance. Since a reasonable jury could conclude that the Bank fired her in retaliation for her complaint, the summary judgment was reversed. The Court affirmed summary judgment on both the hostile work environment (a single sexual overture does not establish hostile work environment)and gender discrimination claims (Egan failed to develop this claim below). Finally, the Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over a magistrate judge's sanctions order that Egan challenges. The magistrate judge has only the power to recommend a sanction (since there was no consent to proceed before the magistrate judge). Since the district court judge never addressed the recommended sanction, it is not reviewable on appeal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ELLIS v. CCA OF TENNESSEE (June 9, 2011)

Harriett Ellis, Patricia Forrest, Shavon Jones, and Delores McNeil were all employed as nurses at the Marion County Jail II. They are all also African-American. CCA of Tennessee operates the jail pursuant to a contract with the Marion County Sheriff and employs its entire medical staff. Plaintiffs allege several instances of racial discrimination at the jail: a) a shift change directive that required nurses to rotate among shifts rather than work the same shift, as the plaintiff nurses had been doing, b) the health services administrator's possession of a management book excerpt that compared workplace problems to monkeys, c) a reference to monkeys over the intercom system, d) a coworker who wore clothing with a picture of the Confederate flag, and e) a doctor stating to one of the nurses that the first name of an inmate named Cole must be "black as." The plaintiffs all resigned in late 2006 or early 2007. They all claim they were constructively discharged because they complained about improper or unsafe work practices. They filed suit under Title VII and § 1981, alleging race discrimination and hostile work environment. They also alleged state law retaliatory discharge. Judge Barker (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. She also concluded that plaintiff Forrest's claims were precluded by res judicata. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Flaum and Williams and District Judge Herndon affirmed. The Court first addressed the hostile work environment claim. Such a claim must show that the environment was both objectively and subjectively offensive. Here, although the Court assumed that the plaintiffs found the management book offensive, they concluded that no reasonable person would find it so. The monkey in the book is clearly a metaphor for management problems, not people. There is also not enough in the record regarding the monkey comments on the intercom to establish a hostile work environment. Although the court found the Confederate flag and the doctor’s statement offensive, the limited number of incidents does not support a hostile work environment claim. The Court turned to the race discrimination claim. A race discrimination claim requires a material, adverse employment action. The Court rejected each of plaintiffs' three suggestions: a) the shift-change policy does not qualify because it did not include any particular hardship, b) plaintiff Ellis' three-day suspension does not qualify because she was unable to show that CCA's explanation was pretext, and c) they cannot show a constructive discharge since it requires more than hostile work environment. The Court then addressed the Indiana statutory whistleblower claim. In order for an employee to get the protection of the statute, she must report a violation of federal or state law, an ordinance violation, or the misuse of public resources. The reports at issue primarily addressed CCA safety practices. Since the plaintiffs have not identified any violation or misuse, they cannot prevail under the statute. The Court did find the district court's ruling on res judicata erroneous. One of the plaintiffs made similar allegations in an earlier lawsuit. The district court concluded that she should have amended her complaint in that suit to include incidents between its filing and the summary judgment motion. The court was wrong. Res judicata does not bar a second lawsuit based on facts that arose after the first complaint was filed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY (June 3, 2011)

Ball State University's Dining Services department has employed Maetta Vance for over 20 years. She was a substitute server from 1989-91, a part-time catering assistant from 1991-2007, and now is a full-time catering assistant. She filed a lawsuit against the University in 2006 alleging Title VII claims of hostile work environment and retaliation. She included several specific allegations of hostile work environment, including: a) co-worker Davis hit her, b) supervisor Kimes made her feel unwelcome, c) co-worker Davis threatened her, d) co-worker McVicker used a racial epithet, e) co-worker McVicker called her a "porch monkey," and f) supervisor Adkins made faces at her. The University responded each time she filed a complaint. It disciplined McVicker for using the epithet. On other occasions, it found no basis for discipline. Her retaliation allegations related to diminished work duties and denial of overtime, and a reassignment to menial tasks in connection with her promotion. Judge Barker (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to the University. Vance appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Wood, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed Vance's hostile work environment claim. The elements of that claim are that the work environment is objectively and subjectively offensive, that the conduct was based on race, that it was either severe or pervasive, and that there was employer liability. With respect to employer liability, a plaintiff must either show that the harassment came from supervisors or that the employer was negligent in discovering or fixing the situation. The Court rejected supervisor liability. First, Davis was not her supervisor. Although other circuits have expanded the supervisor term to include persons with authority to direct daily activity, the Seventh Circuit has limited the term to those who have the authority to directly affect the terms and conditions of employment. Second, Adkins was her supervisor but did nothing more than make ugly faces at her. Third, Kimes was her supervisor and may have engaged in sufficient harassment to create employer liability but there was no evidence that his harassment was based on Vance's race. In the absence of supervisor harassment, the Court turned to co-worker harassment. It concluded that Vance could not establish that the University failed to take reasonable steps to discover and correct the harassment. Every time she made a complaint, the University investigated and responded appropriately. The Court turned to the retaliation claim. Ironically, Vance's retaliation claim is based on her promotion. She admitted that she received more pay and benefits but alleged that her responsibilities were diminished. The Court concluded that the promotion was not a materially adverse employment action. Although she may have enjoyed it less, she sought it out knowing that the responsibilities would be different from her prior position. The only other employee occupying the position had similar responsibilities. Finally, the Court rejected her claim that the University retaliated against her by giving her fewer overtime hours. Although she did work fewer overtime hours than her co-worker, the two were not similarly situated. Her co-worker worked more regular hours, was available more often, and took fewer sick days and leaves of absence.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

MENDEZ v. PERLA DENTAL (May 24, 2011)

Nereida Mendez was a Perla Dental employee. She alleges that she was subjected to severe verbal and physical sexual harassment and even physical abuse. She complained at several levels -- but it only made it worse. She eventually filed a police report concerning the physical abuse. Perla terminated her employment. Mendez brought suit, alleging Title VII claims for gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. She also brought state law claims for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and retaliatory discharge. A jury found for Mendez and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. Perla appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner, and Sykes affirmed. The only issue on appeal is whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. Perla argues that the Illinois Human Rights Commission had exclusive jurisdiction of the claim. The Court agreed that the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction of retaliation claims that are based on complaints of sexual harassment. The question is whether Mendez' retaliatory discharge claim was intertwined with her sexual harassment complaints. The answer to that question is found by examining whether the legal duty Perla allegedly violated arises from the Illinois Human Rights Act. Here, Mendez' claim is that she was fired for filing a police report. Defendants agree that such a claim is recognized by Illinois common law, without reference to the Act, but claim that Mendez abandoned that claim during the litigation. The Court rejected Perla’s argument. First of all, there is no factual basis for it. The evidence at trial included reference to the police report. The fact that a jury instruction might not have been complete does not support abandonment. Second, even if Mendez did abandon the claim, subject matter jurisdiction exists because it is decided at the time of the filing of the complaint.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

MONTGOMERY v. AMERICAN AIRLINES (November 19, 2010)

Anthony Montgomery has been an American Airlines employee for over 20 years, all but five months of it as a Fleet Service Clerk. It is the events of those five months, however, that matter in this case. Late in 2006, Montgomery asked for and was granted a transfer to a mechanic's position. The collective bargaining agreement required and defined a six-month probationary period, toward the end of which Montgomery would have to pass a tool inspection and qualification test. Montgomery took his test in April of 2007. Two company supervisors and a union representative were present. Montgomery failed the test and was returned to his prior position. Nearly 3 months later, Montgomery complained to American that he was subjected to racial harassment and discrimination during his probationary period. In the initial meeting with a company representative, he never stated that he had complained to his supervisors at the time. The company conducted an investigation and concluded that it could not substantiate the allegations. The results of the investigation were that the test was administered fairly, that the few employees who became mechanics without passing the test fell into different categories, and that any tension in the workplace was not based on race. Montgomery filed suit. He alleged a hostile work environment in violation of § 1981 and Title VII and racial discrimination, also in violation of § 1981 and Title VII, for his return to the clerk position. Judge Der-Yeghiayan (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to American. Montgomery appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Kanne affirmed. The Court first addressed the hostile work environment claim, noting that the analysis under the two statutes is the same. The Court found triable issues of fact with respect to three of the four elements of the claim. In order to recover against an employer, however, Montgomery had to establish that American either participated in the harassment or was negligent in finding and correcting it. His only allegation of participation referred to a coworker and thus does not satisfy the participation prong. In order to satisfy the second prong, Montgomery had to establish either that he informed his supervisors of the harassment or that it was so obvious that it amounted to constructive notice. The record does not support either conclusion. The only person he reported his concerns to was his crew chief, a non-management coworker. America cannot be liable for the harassment without clear and direct reporting from the employee. Even if the harassment had been reported, the Court stated that American would have avoided liability because of its prompt and appropriate investigation. The Court turned to the discrimination claim, which Montgomery pursued under both the direct and indirect method of proof. Again, the analysis is the same under both statutes. Under the direct method, Montgomery asserted that non-African-Americans were not required to take the test. The Court rejected this as proof. Even if true, it did not allow the inference of discriminatory motive. Under the indirect method, Montgomery had to establish that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably. He alleged that three individuals became mechanics without passing the test. But the Court concluded that none of the three was similarly situated to Montgomery -- one became a mechanic before the test rule was enforced, one became a mechanic when a recalculation of his probationary time put him past the time limit for taking the test, and Montgomery presented no admissible evidence with respect to the third individual. The Court concluded that Montgomery cannot prevail on his claim that the test requirement was discriminatory. Montgomery also claimed that the test itself was discriminatory. On that claim, the Court concluded that Montgomery simply presented no evidence. Finally, although Montgomery failed to make out a prima facie case, the Court also addressed pretext. It found that American had a legitimate reason for its actions and that Montgomery provided no evidence otherwise.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

FORD v. MINTEQ SHAPES AND SERVICES (November 24, 2009)

Dennis Ford has been employed as a forklift operator for Minteq for many years. Throughout those years, he has been the only African-American employee at his facility. In 2007, Ford brought a race discrimination claim against Minteq. He complained that a coworker referred to him as "black man," that a supervisor called him a guerrilla, that he was not allowed to bring his grandchildren to a holiday party and that he was retaliated against for seeking outside medical attention for an on-the-job injury. The district court granted summary judgment to Minteq. Ford appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer and Wood affirmed. The Court noted that Ford's racial harassment claim required proof of an abusive work environment. The factors to be considered in determining whether the employer's conduct is severe and pervasive are the frequency and severity of the conduct, whether it is physically threatening and whether it interferes with the complainant's job. The Court concluded that Ford's complaints, individually and in the aggregate, did not rise to that level. Specifically with respect to the "black man" comments, the fact that Ford complained only once and never followed up with his employer on that complaint would not allow a reasonable juror to find that it rose to the level of harassment. The Court also concluded that Ford failed to present sufficient evidence on his disparate pay and retaliation claims to reach a jury.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SCRUGGS v. GARST SEED CO. (November 20, 2009)

Dayna Scruggs worked for Garst Seed Company as a Research Technician. Curtis Beazer became her supervisor in 1995. Scruggs and Beazer did not get along. In fact, Beazer did not get along with a number of people. He made many derogatory remarks directed at Scruggs, several of them with a gender bias. In 2004, company management decided to demote or sever Beazer. Before they could do so, however, Garst was purchased by a competitor. New management decided to eliminate Scruggs' position. Scruggs filed an EEOC charge in December 2004 in response. In 2005, Scruggs applied for a Research Assistant position as part of the restructuring. New management did not hire Scruggs -- instead selecting the incumbent (a man) in the Research Assistant position with Garst. Scruggs filed a lawsuit, alleging retaliation and hostile work environment. The district court granted summary judgment against Scruggs. Scruggs appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Wood and Williams affirmed. Scruggs' retaliation claim had two prongs -- that her technician position was eliminated and that the company failed to hire her for the Research Assistant position. Instead of addressing the elements of her retaliation claim, the Court went directly to the company's reasons for its actions. If Scruggs cannot create a material issue of fact with respect to whether the reasons were pretextual, she loses. The Court concluded the Scruggs failed to raise an issue of fact with respect to either the elimination of her technician position or her failure to be hired for the assistant position. Her technician position was eliminated as part of a restructuring and the company's decision to hire someone else for the assistant position was based on their evaluation of qualifications. Summary judgment was appropriate. With respect to the hostile work environment claim, the Court considered that the occasional inappropriate comments, which were not physically threatening, by someone who made such comments to males and females alike did not rise to the level of comments that alter the terms and conditions of employment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

COFFMAN v. INDIANAPOLIS FIRE DEPARTMENT (August 20, 2009)

Tonya Coffman worked as a firefighter in Indianapolis for a few years without incident. In 2003, however, several of her coworkers began to express concern about her ability to drive safely because of her height (she is less than 5 feet tall). The department conducted a series of safety evaluations, which she passed. The concerns continued -- another round of evaluations followed. Her coworkers’ concerns expanded beyond safe driving into issues concerning her mood and interactions with others. Eventually, the department recommended a fitness-for-duty evaluation and a transfer to limited-duty status. The evaluation resulted in an individual therapy referral and more fitness evaluations. After one of those evaluations, she was approved for light duty and eventually returned to full active duty. Coffman sued the department and several individuals under Title VII. She alleged that the driving tests and fitness evaluations were gender discrimination and harassment. She also brought a claim alleging that the medical examinations violated the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment against Coffman on all claims. Coffman appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner and Rovner affirmed. The Court first addressed her Title VII claim under the direct method of proof. Coffman asserted that the record established a "convincing mosaic" of evidence from which a jury could conclude that she was the victim of gender discrimination. To the contrary, the Court found an absence of any evidence in the record that the driving evaluations, the fitness evaluations or her reassignments occurred, even in part, because of her gender. Her failure to do so illustrates the correctness of the district court summary judgment ruling. On her hostile work environment claim, the court concluded that the conduct of the department did not amount to degrading or hostile behavior. In fact, the Court noted that much of the conduct she complains of was accompanied by offers of support and guidance. In addition, as with the discrimination claim, Coffman failed to create a causal link between the alleged hostile behavior and her gender. With respect to the ADA claim, the Court noted that the statute prohibits a covered employer from requiring a medical examination unless it is shown to be job related and a business necessity. Based on the special work environment of a fire department and its responsibility to the public at large, as well as the fact that the department experienced two suicides in the preceding months, the Court concluded that the examinations were consistent with the requirements of the statute.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

DEAR v. SHINSEKI (August 20, 2009)

Deborah Dear, an African-American woman, had impressive educational and employment credentials when she was hired by a Veterans Affairs hospital in 2004. She continued to do well and received positive evaluations for a few years. In 2006, however, her supervisor discovered that the morale in her department was very low and staff members were complaining about Dear’s supervision. The supervisor also witnessed Dear engage in inappropriate discipline. Another supervisor asked Dear to develop and submit a plan for improving the situation. Dear did develop and submit a plan -- but it was late and failed to address many of the issues. Dear was temporarily reassigned to a non-supervisory position with a decrease in salary. She was replaced by a white woman. Dear filed an EEO complaint alleging race discrimination. Several days later, she was permanently reassigned to a staff nurse position. Dear filed a lawsuit pursuant to Title VII, alleging race discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant. Dear appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Ripple and Wood affirmed. The Court addressed Dear’s discrimination claim under the indirect method of proof. The parties did not dispute that Dear was in a protected class and that her reassignment was an adverse employment action. The Court addressed the other two elements: whether she was meeting her employer's legitimate expectations and whether she identified a similarly situated employee who was treated more favorably. The Court concluded that she met neither element. With respect to meeting expectations, Dear relied on her impressive education and employment history. While those may be relevant, the Court emphasized that it must look to her performance at the time of the adverse employment action. The record contained several instances of her failure to meet expectations at the time of her reassignment. Dear also failed to meet her burden of identifying a similarly situated employee who was treated differently. The same two shortcomings prevent her from avoiding summary judgment on her retaliation claim. Finally, with respect to her hostile work environment claim, the Court noted that there was little support in the record for her contention that the environment was hostile to African-Americans.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

HOBBS v. CITY OF CHICAGO (July 21, 2009)

Kelly Hobbs was an African-American woman employed by the City of Chicago's Department of Transportation since 1989. She began her employment as a truck driver and was promoted to Lot Supervisor in 2000. She applied for a Foreman position in both 1997 and 2000and was rejected both times in favor of white males. She filed a charge of gender and race discrimination in January of 2005, shortly after she found out that another white male had been promoted to Acting Foreman. She complains that, after her discrimination charges were filed, she was disciplined on several occasions, her car was vandalized and her job duties were changed. In 2006, she brought suit against the City, alleging race and gender discrimination and retaliation claims against the City under Title VII, race discrimination and retaliation claims against the individual defendants under § 1981, and a hostile work environment claim against the City. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. Hobbs appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Kanne and Williams affirmed. The Court considered the Title VII and § 1981 race and gender discrimination claims together. Under the indirect method of proof, the Court concluded that Hobbs failed to establish she was passed over in favor of a person similarly or less qualified than she. The record showed that the male was more qualified, at least with respect to those skills that were part of the job qualifications. Hobbs also failed to show that the City's reasons for promoting him were pretextual. The Court admitted that the process by which he was promoted was somewhat questionable and may suggest favoritism, but did not prove discrimination. Her retaliation claims failed as well. She failed to show a materially adverse job action and she failed to establish a causal connection between her charges and the discipline imposed on her. The Court was troubled by her charge of automobile vandalism and the City's failure to investigate it, but concluded that the mere fact that it occurred after she filed charges was not enough to survive summary judgment. Finally, the Court concluded that the same facts upon which she based her retaliation claim were similarly insufficient to rise to the "severe or pervasive" threshold of hostile work environment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

LUCERO V. NETTLE CREEK SCHOOL CORPORATION (May 29, 2009)

Sharon Lucero, a female Hispanic, was hired by the Nettle Creek School Corporation in 2001 to teach English at the Hagerstown Junior - Senior High School (the "School"). The School served students in grades 7 through 12 in the same building. Lucero was informed, at the time of her hire, that she could be assigned to teach English at any of the grade levels. For her first two years, Lucero taught 7th and 8th grade English, respectively. For the third year, the School assented to her request to teach 12th grade English. The year progressed quite differently than her prior years of service. The principal criticized her performance, the students complained of her teaching style, and the parents complained of her grading policies, to name just a few of her problems. In addition, two specific incidents late in the year stood out. In one, a student showed a photograph in class of a partially naked classmate. In another, a group of students left several Playboy magazines in her classroom. The students involved in these two incidents were all suspended. After the school year, the School hired a new English teacher, a white male. The school assigned the new teacher to 12th grade English and reassigned Lucero to 7th grade English. Lucero sued the School, challenging her reassignment under theories of retaliation, discrimination, hostile work environment and breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment to the School. Lucero appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Evans affirmed. The Court addressed each of Lucero’s legal theories in turn. With respect to her retaliation claim, the Court noted that she was required to establish that she suffered a materially adverse employment action. The Court addressed the reassignment in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Burlington Northern. Burlington Northern tells us that a court should apply an objective standard for assessing whether the reassignment might have dissuaded a reasonable person from making a charge of discrimination. Here, Lucero was reassigned to teach the same subject in the same building under the same conditions. The Court concluded that her reassignment was not a materially adverse action. The Court similarly found that Lucero failed to demonstrate a materially adverse employment action with respect to her discrimination claim, albeit under a different test. Since her compensation and work conditions were unchanged, Lucero attempted to establish that her reassignment was an adverse employment action by asserting that it would negatively impact her career prospects. The Court found that she failed to submit adequate evidence of a negative career impact and upheld the lower court on the discrimination claim. Next, the Court concluded that Lucero's allegations of hostile work environment failed as a matter of law. Although depicting inappropriate behavior, the Court concluded that they were isolated incidents, were not related to her gender or national origin, and did not support employer liability. Finally, the Court summarily rejected Lucero's breach of contract claims.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ANDONISSAMY v. HEWLETT-PACKARD CO. (November 7, 2008)

Sanjay Andonissamy, a French citizen of Indian ancestry, began his employment with Hewlett-Packard (“HP”) in April of 2001. He was in the country on an HP-sponsored H-1B visa. [The following is Andonissamy’s version of the story – HP’s version differs greatly] After the events of September 11, 2001, Ken Smith, Andonissamy’s supervisor, began to make derogatory racial, ethnic, and nationalist remarks to and about Andonissamy. Andonissamy frequently complained to Smith’s supervisor. Smith placed Andonissamy on remedial performance plans, allegedly in retaliation for Andonissamy’s complaints about Smith. Andonissamy began taking medication for anxiety and depression in 2002. He was being treated, but his physician never placed him on any restricted work schedule. Andonissamy’s condition worsened in early 2003 after the deaths of his brother and nephew. In May of 2003, Smith made a false report to the company implicating Andonissamy as a security threat. HP fired Andonissamy on June 23, 2003. On September 16, Andonissamy filed an EEOC complaint alleging national origin discrimination. The EEOC dismissed his complaint and issued a right to sue letter. Andonissamy filed a complaint in federal court in April of 2004. In addition to his complaints of national origin discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Andonissamy added a Family and Medical Leave Act count. In November of 2005, Andonissamy added Smith as a defendant on an assault count. The district court dismissed Smith and granted summary judgment to HP. Andonissamy appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed Andonissamy’s Title VII hostile work environment claim. In order to survive summary judgment, Andonissamy had to show that a) he was subjected to unwelcome harassment, b) the harassment was based on his national origin, c) it was severe and pervasive enough to amount to a hostile and abusive environment, and d) there exists a basis for employer liability. The Court did not address the first three elements because it found no basis for employer liability. An employer can be vicariously liable for the conduct of a supervisor but can only be liable for the conduct of a co-worker if the company was negligent in discovering or remedying the harassment. A supervisor for purposes of Title VII is the person with the ability to affect the terms and conditions of the plaintiff’s employment. Smith, although he was Andonissamy’s “supervisor” in the sense that he directed his performance, was not a Title VII supervisor. There was no evidence that Smith was able "to hire, fire, promote, demote, discipline or transfer" Andonissamy. In order to hold HP liable for the acts of Smith as co-worker, Andonissamy had to establish that he complained or that the discrimination was so pervasive that HP’s knowledge could be inferred. Although Andonissamy did complain to Smith’s supervisor, he did not specifically complain about national origin discrimination. The Court agreed with the district court that Andonissamy therefore did not make out a Title VII claim. With respect to his companion § 1981 claim, the Court stated that a plaintiff can proceed under the direct or indirect method. The direct method requires evidence that an adverse employment action was based on the plaintiff's national origin. The Court found no such evidence in the record. Under the indirect method, a plaintiff must establish, among other elements, that he was meeting his employer’s legitimate performance expectations. The Court noted that the record contained numerous references to Andonissamy’s performance problems. The Court concluded that Andonissamy was therefore unable to establish a § 1981 claim under either method.

Andonissamy’s retaliation claim could also be established under the direct or indirect method. The indirect method for retaliation, like discrimination, contains an element that Andonissamy was meeting HP’s performance obligations. The Court rejected Andonissamy’s indirect method for establishing his retaliation claim for the same reason it rejected it for his discrimination claim. Under the direct method, Andonissamy had to establish that: a) he engaged in statutorily protected activity, b) his employer took an adverse employment action, and c) there was a causal connection between the two. The Court held that his complaints to HP did not include complaints of national origin discrimination. He was thus unable to establish the statutorily protected activity element. The Court concluded that he failed to establish a retaliation claim under either method. With respect to the FMLA count, the Court noted that Andonissamy never asked for any leave and did not exhibit any dramatic changes in behavior that would have put HP on notice of a need for leave. The Court agreed with the district court that Andonissamy failed to meet his burden under the FMLA.

Finally, the Court addressed Andonissamy’s assault claim against Smith. The assault claim was added to the case after the statute of limitations on the claim had expired. Andonissamy argued that the claim related back to the original claim and was thus permissible under FRCP 15(c). The Court affirmed the dismissal, stating that a claim against a new defendant relates back only when there is a case of mistaken identity. Since Smith supervised Andonissamy for years, that cannot be the case here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link