Katie Mayes v. Winco Holdings, Inc.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1968
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Katie Mayes, a 12-year WinCo employee and night-shift freight crew supervisor (Person in Charge), was terminated on July 8, 2011 for taking a stale cake to the break room and allegedly lying about management permission; WinCo characterized this as theft, dishonesty, and gross misconduct.
- Mayes testified that prior managers (including former GM Mark Wright) and other assistant managers knew and tolerated PICs taking cakes from a "stales" cart for crew morale, and that bakery staff told PICs they did not need to log stale cakes.
- Tension arose with then-GM Dana Steen, who allegedly made gender-biased remarks (e.g., a man "would be better" leading the safety committee; did not like "a girl" running the freight crew) and criticized Mayes for leaving early to care for children—remarks Mayes says were not made about a male counterpart.
- The investigation into cake-taking involved loss-prevention review of surveillance; McInelly implicated Mayes as having given permission; after the investigation both McInelly and Mayes were fired; WinCo replaced Mayes with a less-experienced male employee.
- WinCo denied Mayes COBRA continuation coverage and payment for accrued vacation, citing termination for "gross misconduct" under store policy and provisions in the Collective Bargaining Agreement; Mayes sued asserting Title VII and Idaho Human Rights Act discrimination claims, a COBRA claim, and wage claims under FLSA and Idaho law.
- The district court granted summary judgment for WinCo on all claims; the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding genuine disputes of material fact about discriminatory motive and pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WinCo fired Mayes because of sex (Title VII/Idaho HR Act) | Mayes: Steen's sexist remarks, disparate treatment, practice allowing stale cakes, and replacement by a less-qualified man show discriminatory motive and pretext | WinCo: Legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason—theft/dishonesty; Steen did not make firing decision; remarks are stray or immaterial | Reversed: remarks and circumstantial evidence create triable issues; direct and indirect evidence of pretext exist |
| Whether COBRA denial was proper because termination was for "gross misconduct" | Mayes: If termination was pretextual and discriminatory, it was not legitimate gross misconduct, so COBRA denial may be improper | WinCo: Termination for theft/dishonesty constitutes gross misconduct exempting COBRA obligation | Reversed: factual dispute about true reason for termination precludes summary judgment on COBRA claim |
| Whether CBA bars payment of accrued vacation (wage claims) | Mayes: If termination was not for gross misconduct, CBA provision withholding vacation pay doesn't apply; therefore wages owed | WinCo: CBA excludes payout for employees terminated for gross misconduct | Reversed: genuine dispute about termination reason means wage claim survives summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment claims)
- Dominguez-Curry v. Nevada Dep’t of Transp., 424 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2005) (single discriminatory remark can preclude summary judgment)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (bias of a supervisor may be a causal factor when it influences an adverse employment decision)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (same-sex harassment/ discrimination claims are actionable under Title VII)
- Perez v. Curcio, 841 F.2d 255 (9th Cir. 1988) (replacement by less-qualified person can support inference of pretext)