McDonald-Cuba v. Santa Fe Protective Services, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9488
10th Cir.2011Background
- McDonald-Cuba sued SFPS for Title VII discrimination/retaliation and state-law claims; SFPS counterclaimed but those claims were later dismissed.
- McDonald-Cuba worked for SFPS Feb 9, 2005 to Dec 7, 2007 as clerical/accounting staff; received varying raises and a four-day workweek arrangement.
- She alleged discriminatory salary treatment and a promotion to Director of Accounting and Finance in Feb 2007 that raised questions about pay comparisons with male directors.
- In 2007 McDonald-Cuba and Terry Cuba formed Brahma Defense Enterprises; Brahma registered CCR status with NAICS code overlapping SFPS’s business.
- SFPS terminated McDonald-Cuba two days after Maki learned Brahma’s CCR registration and potential conflict of interest concerns.
- Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies only with respect to pre-termination conduct; district court granted summary judgment on retaliation and discrimination claims; appeal litigates post-termination retaliation and other issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion for post-termination retaliation | McDonald-Cuba contends exhaustion not required for post-termination counterclaim. | SFPS argues Martinez applies; exhaustion required for retaliation tied to litigation. | Remand to dismiss post-termination retaliation claim for lack of exhaustion. |
| Unemployment proceedings retaliation claim viability | Protected activity included unemployment-benefits/EEOC filings and suit, with potential retaliation. | No protected activity before and during the cited retaliation; pre-termination acts insufficient. | Retaliation claim based on unemployment-benefits inquiry fails as no protected activity identified. |
| Termination claim under McDonnell Douglas framework | Pretext shown by inconsistencies in reasons and by knowledge of Brahma's CCR status. | Maki honestly believed conflict of interest; Liming/Aduddell were not similarly situated; no pretext proven. | Termination claim fails; district court’s summary judgment affirmed. |
| Pretext evidence sufficiency | Disparate treatment and undisclosed conflicts among male employees show pretext. | Employees were not similarly situated; evidence does not show pretext for firing McDonald-Cuba. | No reversible pretext shown; employment decision not demonstrated as discriminatory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2003) (discrete retaliation acts require exhaustion; post-filing retaliation must be exhausted)
- Shikles v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 426 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2005) (jurisdiction tied to timely-filed EEOC charges for retaliation claims)
- Annett v. Univ. of Ks., 371 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2004) (lack of jurisdiction when Title VII claims not within EEOC charge)
- Morgan v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (exhaustion principles govern retaliation claims under Title VII)
- Rivera v. City & County of Denver, 365 F.3d 912 (10th Cir. 2004) (employer must act in good faith with asserted reasons; issues of pretext)