According to the
Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was unhappy with a number of facets in her
employment. First, when questions were
raised about her supervision of the office receptionist, those concerns were
investigated and the duty was removed from her based, in part, on her tone of
voice with the receptionist. However, the
new male supervisor was similarly disrespectful to the receptionist (who
apparently had some significant performance issues), but was never investigated
or addressed. This incident adversely affected her relationship with her
supervisor and she was subsequently disciplined for unrelated performance
problems involving neglect of her direct duties. After being bypassed for a potential
promotion, she complained to a co-worker about hearing the decisionmaker wanted
a male. She also complained to this
co-worker about age discrimination when a disrespectful younger employee
received a raise. She then sought and
obtained information about filing a Charge of Discrimination with the Ohio
Civil Rights Commission. Her supervisor
and HR Director heard about her concerns.
He began reviewing all of her emails and HR requested the decisionmaker
to document all interactions with her.
The employer
attempted to address an attendance problem at the agency. Excepting FMLA leave, employees were notified
when they utilized a certain amount of sick leave each year. If they received three or more such notices,
they could face disciplinary action. The
plaintiff objected to receiving these notices, even though she was told her
notices were not disciplinary in nature. She also apparently filed attendance reports
given to other employees in the disciplinary action section of their personnel
files and advised them that they constituted disciplinary actions.
The plaintiff’s
neglect of her job duties continued and she failed to perform several tasks in
a timely manner and disclosed embarrassing information about her supervisor
when she was confronted. Accordingly,
she was placed on administrative leave and told that her contract would not be renewed. She simultaneously received a performance
evaluation which discussed her neglect, indiscretions about him and other
employees, her repeated and willful miscommunications to co-workers about the attendance
management policy, her stubborn insistence on treating attendance notices as
disciplinary infractions when she filed attendance notices in employee
personnel files (which caused problems for at least one employee while under
investigation) and the lack of trust between him and her. In particular, he objected to
her loyalty after hearing that she planned to sue him and the Board for
harassment. As stated by the Court:
As to the second
point, [the supervisor] claimed to question [the plaintiff’s] “confidentiality
and loyalty” in part because “[s]he has been heard to communicate to other
staff that she is suing the Board and me for ‘harassment.’”
The Court easily
dismissed her FMLA retaliation claim.
She received more than the FMLA leave she had been entitled to and her
stubborn insistence on mischaracterizing the agency’s attendance management
policy did not constitute protected conduct. Nonetheless, even assuming that
she could prove a prima facie case, she could not show that her supervisor’s
concern with her performance problems was insufficient to justify her
termination.
The Court,
however, found that her complaints about being bypassed for a promotion and
being held to a higher standard constituted protected conduct even if they were
discussed with a co-worker. “[A]n employee may complain about discrimination
to anyone.” The employer did not
complain that her complaints were unreasonable, and thus, unprotected. Her
supervisor and HR found out about her complaints within days and took adverse
action against her. Her supervisor
specially stated that her threat to sue him was a basis for his distrust of
her. “Because
lack of trust was one basis for refusing to renew [the plaintiff’s] contract, a
causal connection between the two exists.”
[A] reasonable
inference from the timing is that [his] concern regarding [the plaintiff’s] trustworthiness
increased after e-mail monitoring revealed that [she] complained of gender discrimination.
Importantly, the day after [she] sent the e-mail complaining about
discrimination, [HR] “heard through the grapevine” that [she] might sue the
Board for discrimination and asked [another supervisor] to document his
interactions with [the plaintiff]. The timing of these actions, coupled with [her
supervisor’s] statement in the performance evaluation, is sufficient to
establish a causal connection.
While there was some
evidence to support an argument that the employer’s explanation for termination
was pretextual, the plaintiff surprisingly failed on appeal to address entirely
the issue of her job performance.
Therefore, those issues were deemed to be undisputed.
[A]t this final
stage, [the plaintiff] must show pretext. Instead, she ignores the legitimate
reasons offered concerning her job performance and fails to demonstrate that
they were not the true reason for the employment decision, but rather a pretext
for discrimination. Though [she] offered evidence that satisfies the causal
connection step of her prima facie case, that evidence is insufficient to
create a genuine dispute of material fact that the job performance reasons
offered by the Board are pretext for discrimination. [She] failed to identify
evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the Board’s
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual.
NOTICE:
This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal
developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any
particular situation because different facts could lead to different results.
Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not
act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about
anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment
attorney.
