Keeton v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.
84 F. Supp. 3d 1290
N.D. Ala.2015Background
- Sandra Keeton worked part-time at a Big Lots store (2005–2013) and alleged repeated sexual comments and some physical misconduct by Assistant Manager W.C. Collinsworth, which she reported to store managers but not to the company hotline.
- The company had a written anti-harassment policy directing employees to report misconduct to management, HR, a VP, or a hotline and promising investigations and no retaliation.
- Keeton filed an EEOC charge on November 5, 2012 asserting sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation; the last alleged incident she personally experienced occurred by April 2012.
- Keeton suffered a work-related neck injury in August 2012, used FMLA leave, exhausted available leave, attempted brief return in February 2013, then was terminated February 19, 2013 after notifying Big Lots she would remain absent until April 1, 2013.
- Between filing her EEOC charge and this suit, Keeton filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy (March 2013) and did not disclose her EEOC charge or pending discrimination claims; she received a no-asset discharge in June 2013.
- Big Lots moved for summary judgment arguing (1) harassment and retaliation claims were untimely, (2) termination was non-retaliatory, and (3) Keeton’s claims are judicially estopped by nondisclosure in bankruptcy. The court granted summary judgment for Big Lots and dismissed the claims with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of hostile work environment/sexual harassment claim | Keeton alleged prolonged harassment culminating in incidents through April 2012 that collectively formed a hostile work environment; her EEOC charge filed Nov. 5, 2012 covers the claim | Big Lots argued the last actionable conduct occurred before the 180-day window preceding the EEOC charge, so the claim is time-barred | Court: Claim is time-barred — last alleged conduct (April 2012) was outside the 180-day period before EEOC filing; hostile-work-environment rule requires at least one act within 180 days |
| Timeliness of retaliation based on Collinsworth’s conduct (hours cut, shouting, scrutiny) | Keeton contended Collinsworth retaliated after she complained | Big Lots argued those retaliatory acts occurred outside the 180-day filing window and were brief | Court: Retaliation claims based on Collinsworth’s earlier conduct are time-barred because they did not occur within 180 days of EEOC charge |
| Retaliation claim based on termination | Keeton argued termination was in retaliation for her EEOC charge | Big Lots asserted a legitimate reason: she exhausted leave and told employer she would remain off work for an extended, unspecified period beyond allowable leave | Held: Even assuming a prima facie case, Big Lots offered a nondiscriminatory reason and Keeton offered no evidence of pretext; court finds no genuine dispute of material fact on retaliation by termination |
| Judicial estoppel from bankruptcy nondisclosure | Keeton did not disclose EEOC charge or pending discrimination claims in bankruptcy schedules | Big Lots argued nondisclosure of these potentially valuable claims was an intentional misrepresentation warranting judicial estoppel | Held: Court applied judicial estoppel to bar monetary-damage claims — Keeton had motive and knowledge to conceal and failed to amend bankruptcy; claims for money damages are barred (equitable discretion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden shifting and standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment: whether evidence requires jury)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (hostile work environment claims composed of series of acts; timeliness rule)
- Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (distinction between hostile environment and quid pro quo harassment)
- Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. en banc) (affirming rule to view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant on summary judgment)
- Gupta v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 212 F.3d 571 (retaliation elements)
- Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519 (pretext standard in employment discrimination cases)
- Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282 (judicial estoppel in bankruptcy nondisclosure context)