Bennett v. Windstream Communications, Inc.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11861
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Bennett worked 12 years for Paetec as a Fiber Optic Tech III; Windstream acquired Paetec in 2011 and retained her pay/benefits and anti‑discrimination policies.
- After the acquisition, Bennett’s new supervisor (Moore) required technicians to check in at a manned office at 8:00 a.m.; Bennett was assigned Tulsa and faced an almost four‑hour daily commute from Gore.
- Bennett frequently arrived late, left early, or failed to report to the Tulsa office; she never requested an accommodation for the commute.
- Bennett received progressive discipline for attendance, reported chest/shoulder pain and went on short‑term disability (May–June 2012); Windstream removed her company vehicle/tools during leave.
- Windstream sent a ‘‘three options’’ letter (return, provide medical documentation, or resign) with an August 3 deadline; Bennett emailed that she would seek severance instead of choosing an option and was later separated for failing to return.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender and age discrimination (Title VII, ADEA) — termination | Bennett says policies and actions (check‑in requirement, discipline, loss of training, vehicle removal) reflect discriminatory animus against a female/older technician | Windstream says actions were neutral, applied uniformly, based on attendance and legitimate business needs (cross‑training, workload); termination resulted from failing to return or provide medical documentation | Court: Bennett failed to establish a prima facie case and failed to show pretext; summary judgment for Windstream affirmed |
| Retaliation (Title VII) | Bennett implies adverse action followed her complaints/stress reports | Windstream contends actions were punctuality/leave‑driven and would have occurred absent any protected activity | Court: Bennett cannot show ‘‘but‑for’’ causation; retaliation claim fails |
| State antidiscrimination claim (OADA) | Same discriminatory theory as federal claims | Windstream invokes Title VII/ADEA defenses and argues no unlawful discrimination occurred | Court: OADA claim fails for the same reasons as federal claims |
| Constructive discharge (federal and Oklahoma public policy) | Bennett contends conditions were intolerable and she was forced to resign | Windstream argues no unlawful conduct created objectively intolerable conditions; also OADA provides exclusive state remedy | Court: Constructive discharge claim fails — no unlawful discriminatory acts or objectively intolerable conditions; state public‑policy claim not viable under OADA exclusivity |
Key Cases Cited
- Adamson v. Multi Cmty. Diversified Servs., Inc., 514 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing summary judgment in employment cases)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment: genuine dispute and reasonable jury standard)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (prima facie case plus falsity of employer’s explanation can permit inference of discrimination)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (plaintiff’s burden in prima facie case and employer’s burden to articulate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (retaliation requires but‑for causation)
- Sanchez v. Denver Pub. Sch., 164 F.3d 527 (10th Cir. 1998) (constructive discharge standard — objective intolerability)
- Riggs v. AirTran Airways, Inc., 497 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2007) (evaluate pretext from perspective of employer decisionmakers)
- Garrison v. Gambro, Inc., 428 F.3d 933 (10th Cir. 2005) (courts do not second‑guess employer business judgments)