Levan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
984 F. Supp. 2d 855
E.D. Tenn.2013Background
- LeVan worked for Sears Roebuck from 2008 to 2011, transferring to the West Town Mall store in early 2011 as a commissioned sales associate paid on a draw/commission basis.
- LeVan and other employees questioned non-selling work payments and alleged underpayment; LeVan protested in June 2011 after printing a Sears compensation manual.
- LeVan allegedly observed and participated in a prohibited employee-discount transaction involving Marrero’s mother, leading to a termination on July 27, 2011.
- Marrero and Hembree were implicated in similar discount-policy transactions; Marrero was terminated, while Rubin and Hembree’s roles created disputes about comparators.
- Sims, similarly paid by commission, also complained about pay practices, reported to 88Sears, and was terminated August 13, 2011.
- Plaintiffs assert retaliation under the FLSA (and TPPA for LeVan) and Tennessee common law, claiming the stated policy violations were pretexts for retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LeVan's FLSA retaliation claim survives. | LeVan argues retaliation for wage-complaint; prima facie shown by protected activity, knowledge, adverse action, and causation. | Terminations based on policy violations; causation disputed; policy compliance undermines claim. | Denied; genuine factual issues as to causation/pretext survive. |
| Whether Sims's FLSA retaliation claim survives. | Sims argues retaliation for complaints; evidence of proximity, threats, and retaliatory conduct show causation. | Termination based on tardiness/timekeeping violations; no pretext proven. | Denied; genuine factual issues regarding pretext remain. |
| Whether LeVan's TPPA claim survives. | LeVan alleges exclusive causal link between protected activity and termination. | Pay policy violation justifies discharge; TPPA requires exclusive cause. | Granted; LeVan's TPPA claim dismissed as lacking exclusive causation. |
| Whether LeVan and Sims have viable common-law retaliatory discharge claims. | Complaints about pay practices and recording evidence show protected activity; substantial factual questions exist. | Legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for termination; comparators and other employees cited. | Denied; genuine issues of material fact as to pretext remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (pretext framework requires plaintiff to show employer's reasons are pretextual)
- Burdine v. Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affairs, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (pretext standard guidance in McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Guy v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 79 S.W.3d 528 (Tenn. 2002) (public policy and whistleblower protection in retaliatory discharge analysis)