Discrimination Claims Are Barred When They Were Either Untimely Or Not Raised In The EEOC Charge
JONES v. RES-CARE, INC. (July 16, 2010)
Tamika Jones, an African-American female, has several complaints about the way she was treated during her employment at Res-Care. She claims she was promoted in both 2003 and 2004 and acquired increased job responsibilities without an increase in compensation -- unlike several non-African-American employees. She claims she had to specially request time off and that she was denied tuition reimbursement -- unlike several non-African-American employees. She claims she was passed over for promotions in April and November of 2005 and June of 2006 – in favor of non-African-American employees. She filed an EEOC charge in August of 2006, referring to the November 2005 failure to promote and the tuition reimbursement treatment. In 2007, while under specific orders not to vary her work schedule without permission, she returned from her honeymoon three days early. She was given corrective action for the incident. She brought suit under Title VII in June of 2007. She filed a second EEOC charge in November of that year, claiming that the corrective action from the honeymoon incident was in retaliation for the first EEOC charge. She also amended her complaint accordingly. Testimony was elicited during discovery that the Executive Director, after an internal investigation established that Jones improperly charged her employer for some lunches, called her either a "rat" or a "fink" and referred to her as "untrustworthy" to another employee. Jones added a state law slander claim. Judge Lawrence (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to Res-Care on all claims. Jones appeals.
In their opinion, Circuit Judges Manion and Williams and District Judge Darrah affirmed. One of the principal issues on appeal was the timing of the acts of discrimination and the content and timing of the EEOC charge. The Court concluded that the retaliation claim was the only claim that was both mentioned in an EEOC charge and occurred within the 180 days prior to the date of the charge. Jones struck out on each of her three attempts around the ruling: Strike 1) the Court rejected Jones' arguments of continuing violation (they were all discrete acts), Strike 2) the Court rejected her equitable tolling argument (she failed to meet the "aware of the possibility" standard), and Strike 3) the Court rejected her “closely related” argument ("part of a pattern" is not enough). On the merits of the honeymoon incident retaliation claim, the Court concluded both that the corrective action imposed did not amount to an adverse employment action and that Jones failed to establish a causal link between the corrective action and the EEOC charge. The Court also agreed with the district court on the defamation count. Indiana law grants a qualified privilege to alleged defamatory statements if they relate to the fitness of employee and are contained in intra-company communications. The privilege can be lost in certain circumstances, including if it was motivated primarily by ill will. The record established that the statements at issue met the definition of qualified privilege and Jones offered no evidence of ill will other than the offensiveness of the terms themselves -- which is not enough.
The 