Bennett v. Windstream Communications, Inc.
30 F. Supp. 3d 1243
N.D. Okla.2014Background
- Plaintiff Susan Bennett, a 56-year-old former Paetec fiber optic technician, worked as a Fiber Optic Tech III and remained on the same pay/benefits after Windstream acquired Paetec in early 2012.
- After the acquisition, Bennett was reassigned to report to the Tulsa Windstream office and management required technicians to report to their assigned manned office at 8:00 a.m. for integration and cross-training; Bennett frequently arrived late or did not report, hampering cross-training.
- Supervisors issued a "final coaching" (documented verbal warning) for attendance on May 22, 2012; Bennett reported chest/shoulder pain and was referred to workers’ compensation and short-term disability (MetLife) which paid through June 27, 2012.
- While Bennett was on leave, Windstream retrieved her company vehicle and tools for operational needs; Windstream sent a "three options" letter (return, provide medical documentation, or resign) and warned that failure to respond would be treated as job abandonment.
- Bennett did not timely respond; on August 3, 2012 she sent an email accusing Windstream of discrimination and harassment; Windstream separated her employment effective August 7, 2012 for failure to return from leave.
- Bennett sued for Title VII gender discrimination, Title VII retaliation, OADA discrimination, ADEA age discrimination, and constructive discharge; Windstream moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII (gender) & ADEA (age) discrimination | Bennett alleges she was treated worse (required long commute, denied cross-training, discipline, removal of vehicle/tools, and termination) because of age/gender | Requirement to report to Tulsa, attendance discipline, workers’ compensation reporting, short-term disability referral, retrieval of vehicle/tools, and separation were neutral business reasons and applied equally | Summary judgment for Windstream — plaintiff failed to show an adverse employment action, qualification for position given attendance rule, disparate treatment, or pretext |
| Title VII retaliation | Bennett contends she complained about discrimination to supervisors and that adverse actions followed | Windstream argues complaints were vague or not communicated to decisionmakers and no causal link exists | Summary judgment for Windstream — plaintiff did not show protected activity known to decisionmakers or causal nexus |
| OADA (state law discrimination) | Claims parallel federal age/gender discrimination under OADA | Windstream asserts federal claims fail and OADA allows same defenses as federal law | Summary judgment for Windstream — OADA claim fails because federal discrimination claims fail |
| Constructive discharge | Bennett argues harassment and discriminatory conditions forced her to quit | Windstream maintains she abandoned her job after leave and was given options to return or provide medical documentation | Summary judgment for Windstream — no intolerable conditions shown and plaintiff had alternatives; constructive discharge not established |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard: movant need show lack of genuine issue)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmoving party must show genuine issue; courts disregard metaphysical doubt)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for assessing whether a factual dispute is "genuine")
- Stinnett v. Safeway, Inc., 337 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2003) (definition and examples of "adverse employment action")
- Sanchez v. Denver Pub. Schs., 164 F.3d 527 (10th Cir. 1998) (commute/transfer not an adverse action where pay/benefits unchanged)
- PVNF, LLC v. EEOC, 487 F.3d 790 (10th Cir. 2007) (elements and high burden for constructive discharge)