1:20-cv-00104
D. UtahDec 21, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff Viktorya Reznik was Director of Project Management at inContact from Jan 2018 to May 2019 and was terminated in a May 23, 2019 meeting where she was told she was “not a good culture fit.”
- In April–May 2019 Reznik received complaints from two native Filipino inContact employees in the Philippines that a coworker repeatedly used racial slurs against them and that the harassment affected their work and wellbeing.
- Reznik reported the complaints to her supervisor and to HR; both expressed shock and HR assured her the complainants would not face reprisal.
- Shortly after reporting, Reznik was terminated; she filed EEOC charges alleging her termination was retaliatory for opposing racial/ethnic discrimination and received a Notice of Right to Sue.
- inContact moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court assumed the complaint’s factual allegations as true and evaluated whether they plausibly state a Title VII retaliation claim.
- The court dismissed the action with prejudice, holding Reznik’s opposition was not objectively reasonable because Title VII does not reach foreign employment of aliens abroad, so her retaliation claim fails.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reznik engaged in "protected opposition" to discrimination (a reasonable, good-faith belief that underlying conduct violated Title VII) | Reznik reported racial slurs against Filipino employees and thus opposed unlawful discrimination | The underlying conduct involved foreign employees abroad; Title VII does not cover employment of aliens outside the U.S., so any belief that Title VII was violated was not objectively reasonable | Court: Not protected — Reznik's belief was not objectively reasonable because Title VII excludes aliens employed outside any State; first element fails |
| Whether the complaint states a plausible Title VII retaliation claim under Rule 12(b)(6) (materially adverse action and causation evaluated after protected activity) | Reznik alleges timely EEOC charges, termination soon after reporting, and causation — amounting to retaliation | Even if alleged facts are true, failure on the protected-activity element means the complaint cannot state a viable retaliation claim | Court: Complaint fails to state a claim; motion to dismiss granted and case dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (establishes pleading standard: complaint must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to be plausible)
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (elements of Title VII retaliation claim)
- Davis v. James, [citation="597 F. App'x 983"] (complaint is protected under Title VII only if it opposes practices unlawful under Title VII)
- Zimpfer v. Aramark Mgmt. Servs., LP, 795 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (objective reasonableness of employee’s belief must be evaluated against existing substantive law)
- Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244 (Title VII does not apply to employment of aliens outside the United States)