Ford v. Jackson National Life
45 F.4th 1202
| 10th Cir. | 2022Background
- La’Tonya Ford, an African-American woman, worked at Jackson National Life (internal wholesaler → business development consultant) and applied repeatedly for promotions (including several external-wholesaler positions) but was not promoted.
- Ford alleges widespread race- and sex-based harassment (e.g., a 2008 off-site “vodka-bottle” sexual incident, coworkers’ sexually explicit questions and pornographic images, racist jokes) and that supervisors (notably VP James Bossert) made derogatory remarks and hampered her advancement.
- Ford was placed on a PIP in Sept. 2009; she filed complaints internally and with the EEOC (Dec. 2009 and supplements), followed by Jackson’s HR investigation that rescinded the PIP but later assigned Bossert as her supervisor.
- Bossert sent a Sept. 2010 email expressing that promoting Ford would allow her to “further[] her complaint”; Ford later resigned after a defaced football incident and other mistreatment; Jackson disciplined employees involved and apologized.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Jackson on all claims; on appeal the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the discrimination claims but reversed in part (retaliation — failure-to-promote), reversed hostile-work-environment claims (race and sex), and remanded constructive-discharge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination — failure to promote | Ford says she was passed over due to race/sex; employer’s reasons were pretext | Jackson: other candidates performed better in interviews; nondiscriminatory reasons (product knowledge, territory fit, sales ability) | Affirmed dismissal — Jackson met its burden; Ford failed to show pretext or overwhelming merit disparity |
| Discrimination — terms/conditions (territories, training, late evaluations) | Realignments and extra training reduced her earnings and opportunities; late/missing evaluations disadvantaged her | Jackson: realignment driven by Merrill Lynch onboarding; training and evaluations part of job; no material adverse action shown | Affirmed dismissal — Ford failed to show adverse action or pretext |
| Retaliation — failure to promote | Promotions were denied in retaliation for complaints/EEOC; Bossert’s comments and email show motive | Jackson: Bossert lacked decision authority; selections were merit-based | Reversed in part — triable issue exists (Bossert’s email and evidence of influence create inference of retaliatory motive) |
| Retaliation — PIP and territory realignment | PIP and territory changes were retaliatory after complaints | Jackson: PIP predated protected EEOC filing; territory changes not materially adverse | PIP claim dismissed for lack of causation; territory claim dismissed for lack of adverse action |
| Hostile work environment — sex and race | Sexually explicit conduct (vodka-bottle, questions, porn), racial slurs and jokes created severe/pervasive environment | Jackson: incidents isolated; employer investigated and remedied some conduct | Reversed dismissal — triable issues exist for both sex- and race-based hostile-environment claims; vodka-bottle included; football incident excluded because employer promptly remedied it |
| Constructive discharge | Ford quit because conditions were intolerable | District court had dismissed constructive-discharge tied to hostile-environment ruling | Reversed and remanded for district court to assess constructive-discharge in light of surviving hostile-work-environment claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (legal standard that Title VII forbids discrimination based on protected characteristic)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Fassbender v. Correct Care Sols., LLC, 890 F.3d 875 (10th Cir.) (what qualifies as direct evidence; timing/context matters)
- Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir.) (direct-evidence standard where comments directly relate to job fitness)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (hostile-work-environment claims: aggregate acts within filing period may be considered)
- Bekkem v. Wilkie, 915 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir.) (McDonnell Douglas steps and pretext standard)
- Haynes v. Level 3 Commc'ns, LLC, 456 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir.) (PIP alone not necessarily an adverse action)
- Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (constructive discharge requires intolerable working conditions standard)
- Hansen v. SkyWest Airlines, 844 F.3d 914 (10th Cir.) (considering related pre- and post-limitations harassment incidents)
- Throupe v. Univ. of Denver, 988 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir.) (severity/pervasiveness test for hostile work environment)