Hernandez v. Valley View Hospital Ass'n
684 F.3d 950
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Ms. Hernandez, a Latina, worked in Valley View Hospital’s food services since 2001 and was supervised by Lillis (2004–2005) and Stillahn (2005–2007).
- She alleges racially derogatory jokes/comments about Mexicans/Latinos by her supervisors, repeated despite her complaints.
- In mid-2007 she reported discrimination; she was suspended in July 2007 after a confrontational incident and later faced threats of firing.
- Valley View proposed a leave under FMLA; Hernandez remained on unpaid status and was eventually terminated on October 18, 2007 after failing to return from leave.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Valley View on hostile environment and constructive discharge, and dismissed her retaliation claim as time-barred.
- We reversed on hostile environment and constructive discharge, and affirmed the retaliation dismissal as time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence shows a racially hostile work environment | Hernandez shows pervasiveness of racial harassment | Jokes were isolated or not directed at Hernandez | Yes; material facts support a hostile environment claim |
| Whether the conduct was sufficiently severe/pervasive to alter conditions | Record shows repeated, offensive conduct | Contested whether incidents were pervasive | Yes; jury could find environment permeated with discriminatory intimidation |
| Whether constructive discharge occurred | Harassment plus intolerable conditions forced resignation | No tangible adverse action proven | Remanded; reversal of district court on constructive discharge tied to hostile environment finding |
| Whether the retaliation claim relates back under Rule 15(c) | Retaliation claim arose from same conduct as timely complaint | New and discrete facts; not related back | Relates back is improper; time-barred |
| Whether the retaliation claim was timely filed | Amendment filed timely within pleading period | Amendment filed after limitations period | Time-barred under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Herrera v. Lufkin Indus., Inc., 474 F.3d 675 (10th Cir. 2007) (two-part objective/subjective standard for hostile environment)
- PVNF, L.L.C. v. E.E.O.C., 487 F.3d 790 (10th Cir. 2007) (totality of circumstances; harassment of others can be probative)
- Tademy v. Union Pac. Corp., 614 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 2008) (racially neutral conduct evaluated in context with overtly racist conduct)
- O’Shea v. Yellow Tech. Servs., Inc., 185 F.3d 1093 (10th Cir. 1999) (environment-focused analysis; pervasiveness factors)
- Ford v. West, 222 F.3d 767 (10th Cir. 2000) (rejects vague conclusory statements; need specifics for harassment claim)
- Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (Supreme Court 2005) (relation back requires same conduct/occurrence; new facts do not relate back)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (relation back analysis for amended complaints)
- Chavez v. New Mexico, 397 F.3d 826 (10th Cir. 2005) (use of arguably neutral harassment to bolster racially based claim)
- Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (Supreme Court 2004) (constructive discharge standard; tangible action considerations)
- Bolden v. PRC Inc., 43 F.3d 545 (10th Cir. 1994) (pervasiveness not satisfied by isolated incidents)