Monica Guessous v. Fairview Property Investments
828 F.3d 208
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Monica Guessous, an Arab‑American Muslim from Morocco, worked as a bookkeeping assistant for Fairview from 2007 until her termination on March 1, 2013. She alleges repeated derogatory comments and intrusive supervision by her supervisor, CFO Greg Washenko.
- Examples include comments equating Middle Easterners with criminals and terrorists, repeated inquiries about Muslim/Middle Eastern topics, name‑calling, an alleged poisoning prank, and micromanagement directed only at Guessous.
- Guessous took maternity leave Aug–Oct 2012; upon return her duties were reassigned to non‑Arab/non‑Muslim co‑workers. She complained to Washenko on December 6, 2012 about the treatment and requested her duties back. Within about 75 minutes Fairview’s president sent emails seeking alternative employment for Guessous; Guessous was terminated three months later.
- Procedural posture: Guessous filed an EEOC charge days after termination and sued under § 1981 and Title VII alleging discrimination (race, religion, national origin, pregnancy), hostile work environment, and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment for Fairview on all counts; the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded.
- The Fourth Circuit viewed the record in the light most favorable to Guessous and held material disputes exist as to pretext for termination, the applicability of the continuing‑violation doctrine to hostile‑work‑environment claims under § 1981, and whether Washenko’s conduct could be construed as race/ethnicity‑based and sufficiently severe or pervasive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliation (§ 1981 & Title VII): whether Guessous’ December 6, 2012 complaint was protected activity and whether termination was retaliatory | Guessous: her December 6 complaint was protected; termination soon after (and president’s hiring emails) shows causal link and pretext for Fairview’s lack‑of‑work justification | Fairview: terminated for lack of work; duties were redistributed and position not needed — no causal link or pretext | Reversed summary judgment: timing, president’s emails, lack of documentary support for years‑long reduction plan, and disputed facts create triable issue of pretext and causation. |
| Discriminatory discharge (race, religion, national origin, pregnancy) | Guessous: termination and redistribution of duties to non‑Arab/non‑Muslim employees supports prima facie case; evidence of animus by Washenko shows pretext | Fairview: legitimate non‑discriminatory reason — insufficient work; position eliminated as part of business decision | Reversed: prima facie case established (mini‑RIF context), and evidence permits a reasonable jury to find Fairview’s lack‑of‑work reason pretextual. |
| Hostile work environment (§ 1981 race; Title VII religion/national origin/pregnancy) — timeliness for Title VII claim | Guessous: discrete acts (removal of duties in Nov 2012; termination Mar 2013) are part of the hostile environment and make the Title VII claim timely under the continuing‑violation doctrine | Fairview/district court: discrete acts are separately actionable and cannot be used to extend a hostile‑environment claim | Reversed on timeliness: acts within statutory period (Nov 2012, Mar 2013) can be constituent acts of a hostile‑work‑environment claim under the continuing‑violation approach. |
| Hostile work environment (merits — severity/pervasiveness; whether comments are race‑based under § 1981) | Guessous: repeated derogatory remarks and intrusive, targeted supervision show severe/pervasive discrimination based on Arab ethnicity and related identities | Fairview/district court: only one comment was racially derogatory; other remarks were about religion/culture and not race; conduct not sufficiently severe or pervasive | Reversed: Morgan continuing‑violation framework applies to § 1981; numerous comments and conduct could be construed as race/ethnicity‑based and, viewed in totality, raise a genuine dispute about severity/pervasiveness. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (clarifies employer’s production burden and plaintiff’s burden to prove pretext)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (evidence supporting prima facie case can undermine employer’s justification and permit jury inference of discrimination)
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (hostile work environment claims involve a series of acts and the continuing‑violation doctrine applies)
- Saint Francis Coll. v. Al‑Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604 (§ 1981 protects discrimination based on ancestry/ethnic characteristics)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (standard for severe or pervasive hostile work environment)
- Foster v. Univ. of Maryland‑Eastern Shore, 787 F.3d 243 (4th Cir.) (retaliation claims require but‑for causation analysis)
- Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (but‑for causation need not be sole cause; incremental cause suffices)