Reznik v. inContact
18 F.4th 1257
10th Cir.2021Background
- Viktorya Reznik was Director of Project Management at inContact (Jan 2018–May 2019); two Filipino employees reported repeated racial slurs by a Salt Lake manager (called them “monkeys,” “not human”), affecting their work and wellbeing.
- Reznik relayed complaints to her supervisor and HR; both expressed dismay and HR assured no reprisal; weeks later Reznik was terminated for not being a “culture fit.”
- Reznik sued under Title VII alleging retaliation for opposing racial discrimination; district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to allege an objectively reasonable belief that the conduct violated Title VII.
- Reznik conceded the statutory point that Title VII does not apply to aliens employed abroad (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a)) but argued her belief that the conduct was unlawful was nonetheless objectively reasonable.
- The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that objective reasonableness must account for the substantive law plus what a reasonable employee would understand given the circumstances (severity, pervasiveness, job duties, duration), and that Reznik plausibly alleged such a reasonable belief.
- Case was remanded for further proceedings; Judge Carson dissented, arguing objective reasonableness should be measured against existing substantive law (so Reznik’s belief was unreasonable).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reznik engaged in protected opposition under Title VII by having an objectively reasonable belief that the conduct was unlawful | Reznik: belief was subjectively and objectively reasonable because the conduct was severe, pervasive, and would violate Title VII but for the statutory exception | inContact: objective reasonableness should be measured by substantive law; Title VII excludes aliens abroad, so belief was unreasonable | Court: reversal — objective reasonableness considers the law and what a reasonable employee would believe given attendant circumstances; Reznik plausibly alleged a reasonable belief |
| Standard for assessing objective reasonableness (substantive-law approach vs. reasonable-employee approach) | Reznik: adopt a reasonable-employee test that examines attendant circumstances (severity, pervasiveness, job role, duration) | inContact: use a substantive-law approach that looks primarily to whether the conduct actually violates Title VII | Court: adopts a reasonable-employee standard (objective inquiry considers the law plus workplace context and what a reasonable employee would understand) |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark County School District v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (examined reasonableness of belief about unlawful harassment and evaluated law plus circumstances)
- Crumpacker v. Kansas Department of Human Resources, 338 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2003) (established subjective good-faith and objective-reasonableness test in this circuit)
- Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., 786 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2015) (adopted a lesser showing than proof of hostile work environment for retaliation protection; considered severity of epithets)
- E.E.O.C. v. Rite Way Service, Inc., 819 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2016) (considered contextual factors defining a zone reasonably perceived to violate Title VII)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (explained Title VII’s broad retaliation protections to encourage reporting)
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (described factors for hostile work environment: severity, pervasiveness, and effect on employment conditions)