Fassbender v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC
890 F.3d 875
| 10th Cir. | 2018Background
- Fassbender, a certified medication aide employed by Correct Care Solutions (CCS) at a county detention center, was one of several employees who became pregnant in early 2015.
- Her supervisor, Carrie Thompson, made remarks about having "too many pregnant workers." Coworkers overheard Thompson sounding frustrated.
- On April 30, 2015, an inmate left a sexually suggestive, personal handwritten note on Fassbender’s medication cart. Fassbender took the note home and later reported it to detention-center (not CCS) officials; they disciplined the inmate and told her she reported appropriately to them.
- CCS/Detention Center officials criticized Fassbender for taking the note home and for delay in notifying CCS management; CCS’s HR instructed Thompson to investigate and to suspend Fassbender.
- Within about a week Thompson recommended termination; CCS cited violations of the fraternization policy. CCS gave shifting explanations for termination (delay in reporting, discussing personal matters, and ultimately removing correspondence from the facility). Fassbender filed an EEOC charge and then suit alleging pregnancy discrimination and retaliation for reporting sexual harassment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for CCS on both claims. The Tenth Circuit reversed summary judgment on the pregnancy-discrimination claim (finding triable circumstantial evidence of pretext) and affirmed summary judgment on the retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether supervisor comments constitute direct evidence of pregnancy discrimination | Thompson’s comments about having "too many pregnant workers" are direct evidence that Fassbender was fired because she was pregnant | Comments were not tied to the termination decision and thus not direct evidence | Not direct evidence; comments insufficient to prove discriminatory reason without causal nexus |
| Whether circumstantial evidence shows pretext for pregnancy discrimination (McDonnell Douglas framework) | Totality (Thompson’s comments, CCS’s shifting reasons, proper handling of second note, procedural irregularities) permits a jury to find CCS’s stated reason (taking note home) pretextual | CCS asserts a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason: violation of fraternization policy (removing inmate correspondence); explanations are consistent and legitimate | Reversed district court: a reasonable jury could find pretext based on combined circumstantial evidence; claim proceeds to trial |
| Whether CCS’s inconsistent explanations for termination indicate pretext | CCS changed and refined reasons over time (delay, not reporting to supervisor, taking note home), and failed to attach a termination narrative as required | Explanations are related and employer may clarify initial justification | Inconsistencies and procedural irregularities could support inference of pretext for jury; fact issue exists |
| Whether reporting the inmate note was protected activity (retaliation claim) | Reporting the note was opposing sexual harassment; termination was retaliation | The note was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute actionable sexual harassment; belief was not objectively reasonable | Affirmed for CCS: no reasonable jury could find the report was protected opposition to Title VII sexual-harassment (isolated note insufficient) |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (analytical burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111 (direct evidence bypasses McDonnell Douglas)
- Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2013) (when remarks during hiring interview were direct evidence of sex discrimination)
- Perry v. Woodward, 199 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 1999) (need causal nexus between biased statements and adverse action)
- EEOC v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, 450 F.3d 476 (10th Cir. 2006) (prior discriminatory comments probative of pattern affecting discipline)
- Metzler v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 464 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2006) (employer’s reasons may be rejected as "weak, implausible, inconsistent")
- Riggs v. AirTran Airways, Inc., 497 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2007) (definition of direct evidence of discrimination)