Farley Lee v. Cleveland Clinic Found.
676 F. App'x 488
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Farley Lee, a 61‑year‑old Chinese‑descent RN with 38 years at Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF), alleges age, race, national‑origin discrimination and retaliation after repeated complaints to supervisors and HR.
- Beginning 2013, coworkers made derogatory racial/age comments; Lee complained to supervisors and HR, who often declined to investigate.
- In April 2014 Meyer (supervisor) issued a corrective action and a PIP for interpersonal/communication issues after reported patient‑interaction problems; Lee protested discrimination.
- On July 18, 2014 CCF issued a second corrective action for failure to monitor a high‑risk patient; Lee was suspended pending investigation, told not to return until contacted, and soon resigned (sent resignation July 21, 2014).
- Lee sued under Title VII and the ADEA (plus state tort claims). The district court granted summary judgment for CCF and denied Lee’s motion to strike and limited discovery; the Sixth Circuit affirmed the procedural rulings but reversed summary judgment and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination (age, race, national origin) — prima facie adverse action | Lee: discipline, increased surveillance, suspension/termination/constructive discharge, and replacement by a younger non‑Asian RN constitute adverse actions supporting discrimination | CCF: no discharge; discipline and surveillance not materially adverse; suspension was not served so no economic harm; replacement not shown to be for Lee’s role | Reversed: genuine disputes exist on termination vs suspension, constructive discharge, replacement — prima facie case survives summary judgment |
| Pretext for nondiscriminatory reasons | Lee: lack of written patient complaints, inconsistent investigations, timing after complaints, disparate discipline of comparators show pretext | CCF: acted on patient complaints and safety concerns; honest‑belief defense; comparators differ and were treated similarly | Reversed: credibility and factual disputes (basis for complaints, honest belief, comparators) preclude summary judgment |
| Retaliation for protected complaints | Lee: she engaged in protected complaints; subsequent PIP, surveillance, suspension, and close timing support causation and materially adverse action in retaliation context | CCF: disciplinary actions were for legitimate misconduct independent of complaints; proximity insufficient; actions not materially adverse | Reversed: material issues of fact (timing, increased surveillance, suspension) could allow a reasonable jury to find retaliation |
| District court discovery & motion practice rulings (motion to strike and motion to compel) | Lee: late filing of Meyer’s declaration and limited production of comparator files prejudiced her case | CCF: declaration addressed routine business records; broad production was unduly burdensome | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to strike or in limiting discovery sampling; no substantial prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishing burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and credibility as jury function)
- Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (definition of tangible employment actions and discrimination context)
- Logan v. Denny’s, Inc., 259 F.3d 558 (hostile work environment/constructive discharge analysis)
- Majewski v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., 274 F.3d 1106 (honest‑belief doctrine in employment decisions)