Marla Montell v. Diversified Clinical Services
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12125
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Montell was Program Director at a DCS-managed wound care center; her supervisor was Austin Day. She had documented performance problems (PIP, Final Warning, Amended Final Warning) and was on a 30‑day action plan as of May 3, 2011.
- Montell alleges Day made repeated sexualized comments (e.g., “nothing turns me on more than a woman in a red dress…”) and prefaced comments with warnings about HR; she complained to HR on May 19, 2011.
- HR (Megan Lee) promptly notified Day and investigated; Day denied the comments and HR took no disciplinary action.
- Montell alleges Day called her the next day and told her to resign or be fired, and told the hospital liaison she had resigned; Montell resigned feeling threatened on May 23, 2011 and sued under Kentucky law for retaliation (KCRA), harassment, IIED, and negligent hiring/supervision/retention.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants and denied defendants’ sanctions motion; the Sixth Circuit reversed as to the retaliation claim (remanding for trial) and affirmed in all other respects, including denial of sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliation (KCRA) — constructive discharge after HR complaint | Montell: complained to HR (protected activity); Day retaliated by calling her to resign and telling liaison she’d resigned; temporal proximity + conduct support causation and pretext | DCS: adverse action was motivated by documented poor performance; termination was previously contemplated so temporal proximity is insufficient | Court: Reversed summary judgment — plaintiff made prima facie case (protected activity, employer knowledge, adverse action, causation) and raised genuine issues of fact on causation and pretext; jury must decide credibility and motive |
| Harassment (KY criminal harassment statute) | Montell: Day’s comments amounted to harassment | Day/DCS: comments lacked requisite intent to intimidate/harass under statute | Affirmed summary judgment for Day — record lacks evidence of the specific intent required by statute |
| IIED / Outrage | Montell: repeated sexual comments and conduct caused severe emotional distress | Day: conduct, while offensive, does not meet extreme/outrageous standard | Affirmed summary judgment — conduct did not reach Kentucky’s high IIED threshold |
| Negligent hiring/supervision/retention (against DCS) | Montell: DCS negligently supervised/retained Day | DCS: no evidence supporting negligent-hiring/supervision claim | Affirmed summary judgment — plaintiff failed to present factual support for the claim |
| Sanctions (Rule 11 / 28 U.S.C. § 1927) | DCS: claims and litigation conduct were frivolous and multiplied proceedings | Montell: claims were reasonable; counsel did not act vexatiously | Affirmed denial of sanctions — conduct not objectively unreasonable or frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for circumstantial discrimination/retaliation cases)
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S.Ct. 2517 (but‑for causation standard for retaliation motivated by discrimination)
- Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (temporal proximity and previously contemplated adverse actions)
- Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co., 516 F.3d 516 (6th Cir.) (temporal proximity may suffice when very close in time)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (weighing evidence; credibility/jury role at summary judgment)
- Brooks v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Hous. Auth., 132 S.W.3d 790 (Ky. 2004) (Kentucky adopts federal Title VII analysis for KCRA retaliation)