Jenkins v. CACI Inc - Federal
5:21-cv-00501
| W.D. Okla. | Oct 23, 2023Background
- Jenkins was an HR employee at CACI’s Shared Services Center with elevated Workday access; she led New Hire Administration and was a Day One Coordinator.
- Jenkins applied for an NHA‑Assistant Manager role; CACI hired an external male applicant (Chavez); Jenkins later received a written warning for covering for a coworker’s misuse of Workday.
- An audit of Workday keystrokes prompted CACI to investigate NHA team members; several colleagues were interviewed and four were terminated; Jenkins was on vacation, had her system access cut off June 23, 2020, and thereafter submitted a resignation and received two weeks’ pay and an ‘‘eligible for rehire’’ designation.
- Jenkins sued for sex discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation (Title VII and OADA), and unpaid overtime (FLSA). CACI moved for summary judgment.
- Jenkins’ initial response brief had defects; many of her denials were deemed admitted. The court concluded Jenkins failed to raise genuine disputes of material fact and granted summary judgment for CACI on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender discrimination — termination | Jenkins says she was discharged because of sex; points to anonymous complaint about male SVP and comments that a male was hired and called "cute" | CACI says no direct evidence linking decisionmakers’ alleged bias to Jenkins’ separation and that Jenkins was not actually shown to be terminated | Summary judgment for CACI: Jenkins failed to show an adverse employment action or nexus to discrimination; no prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas |
| Retaliation | Jenkins contends she complained about Estes’ issuance of a written warning and was retaliated against | CACI says Jenkins can’t show an adverse action or that decisionmakers knew she engaged in protected opposition | Summary judgment for CACI: Jenkins did not prove adverse action or causal connection for retaliation claim |
| Hostile work environment | Jenkins points to supervisors’ conduct (hiring decision, written warning, public personnel file, belittling, comments/behavior by Jester) as creating abusive environment | CACI argues alleged conduct was not because of sex and was not sufficiently severe or pervasive | Summary judgment for CACI: evidence insufficient to show harassment ‘‘because of sex’’ or severe/pervasive conditions |
| FLSA overtime | Jenkins says Estes required off‑hours work that was uncompensated; texts support off‑hours requests | CACI says Jenkins kept no records and cannot prove amount/extent of uncompensated overtime | Summary judgment for CACI: Jenkins failed to produce evidence to establish hours or amount of unpaid overtime by reasonable inference |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (same‑sex harassment actionable only if "because of sex")
- Ford v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 45 F.4th 1202 (10th Cir. 2022) (direct‑evidence standard and timing/context limits)
- Throupe v. Univ. of Denver, 988 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2021) (hostile work environment elements)
- Zokari v. Gates, 561 F.3d 1076 (10th Cir. 2009) (employer knowledge and retaliation causal connection)
- Bekkem v. Wilkie, 915 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2019) (McDonnell Douglas framework applied)
- Brown v. ScriptPro, LLC, 700 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff’s burden to prove unpaid overtime and amount by reasonable inference)
- Rivero v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of N.M., 950 F.3d 754 (10th Cir. 2020) (constructive discharge standard)
- Proctor v. United Parcel Service, 502 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir. 2007) (temporal proximity alone may be insufficient to prove retaliation)
- Fassbender v. Correct Care Sols., LLC, 890 F.3d 875 (10th Cir. 2018) (summary judgment standard)