Leanne Renee Kidd v. Mando American Corporation
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19786
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Leanne Kidd, a white accountant at Mando America, assumed additional supervisory duties after her supervisor was fired but received no promotion or raise; Mando later hired Byong Woo “B.W.” Seo, a Korean male, as assistant accounting manager.
- Kidd learned Seo was hired without her being informed of an internal search; she claims HR never considered American candidates and that management preferred Korean males for management roles.
- Kidd alleges discrimination (gender and national origin), hostile work environment (abandoned below), and retaliation under Title VII; she filed EEOC charges and sued in federal court.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Mando on discrimination and retaliation claims; Kidd appealed principally arguing pretext and that an HR manager Jerry Rolison’s alleged statement (that management refused to consider Americans) is admissible and creates a triable issue.
- The Eleventh Circuit found Kidd made a prima facie failure-to-promote claim but whether she raised a material factual dispute on pretext depends on admissibility of Rolison’s remark; the court vacated in part and remanded for the district court to decide that evidentiary issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful demotion (loss of supervisory duties) | Kidd contends loss of responsibilities was a materially adverse action | Mando contends no change in pay/title and routine reassignment; not materially adverse | Court: Demotion claim fails — loss of duties alone not a materially adverse action here; summary judgment for employer affirmed on this theory |
| Failure to promote | Kidd argues she was effectively qualified and was unlawfully passed over for Seo; Rolison’s remark shows discriminatory intent | Mando says it hired Seo for auditing experience and other legitimate reasons; plaintiff was not as qualified | Court: Prima facie case established; employer stated nondiscriminatory reason; whether pretext exists depends on admissibility of Rolison’s statement — remanded |
| Admissibility of Rolison’s remark (hearsay/agency) | Kidd says Rolison told her decisionmakers refused to consider American candidates; this can be admission by agent or within scope of employment under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D) | Mando and district court treated Rolison as non-decisionmaker and his remark as inadmissible opinion/hearsay | Court: Unclear record whether Rolison was sufficiently involved or repeating management; admissibility is outcome-determinative — remand to district court to resolve admissibility |
| Retaliation | Kidd asserts she suffered adverse actions after protected complaints (removal of duties, harassment) | Mando argues no causal connection; decisionmakers unaware of complaints; no materially adverse action shown | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Mando — Kidd failed to show causal link or that decisionmakers knew of protected conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for circumstantial Title VII claims)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (plaintiff bears burden to prove employer’s reason was pretext)
- Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. en banc) (employer’s burden is production only; plaintiff must show pretext)
- Rowell v. BellSouth Corp., 433 F.3d 794 (11th Cir.) (admissibility of non-decisionmaker statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(D))
- Springer v. Convergys Customer Mgmt. Grp., 509 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir.) (plaintiff cannot prevail merely by showing she was better qualified)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (courts need not credit employer’s evidence only if uncontradicted and unimpeached)
- Davis v. Town of Lake Park, 245 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir.) (definition of materially adverse employment action)
- Webb-Edwards v. Orange Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 525 F.3d 1013 (11th Cir.) (requirements for demotion and adverse action in employment claims)
- Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir.) (circumstantial evidence can create triable issue on discriminatory intent)