Robinson v. Ergo Solutions, LLC
257 F. Supp. 3d 47
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Lori Robinson worked for Ergo Solutions from 1996 and teleworked for ~15 years until 2011.
- In January 2011 Robinson filed an EEOC complaint alleging sexual harassment by owner Jason Henderson.
- Later in 2011 Ergo informed Robinson she must stop teleworking and report to the office; parties dispute the exact notice date (Robinson points to July 8, 2011 email; Ergo points to a September 14, 2011 letter).
- Ergo says the change was a legitimate business response to several unexcused July 2011 absences; Robinson says the timing and surrounding negative treatment after her EEOC filing indicate retaliation.
- Robinson sued under Title VII for retaliation; after motions, the only remaining claim was retaliation and Ergo moved for summary judgment.
- The court denied summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact (adversity, causation, timing, and pretext) appropriate for a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ending long-standing telework is a "materially adverse" action under Title VII retaliation standard | Robinson: revocation of a 15-year telework benefit is sufficiently harmful and could dissuade a reasonable worker from complaining | Ergo: requiring in-office work is not materially adverse absent special circumstances (e.g., caregiving) | Court: factual question for a jury; cannot decide as matter of law at summary judgment |
| Whether there is causation between EEOC complaint and telework revocation | Robinson: close temporal proximity (six months per her evidence) plus escalating conflicts after complaint support inference of retaliation | Ergo: timing gap is too long and there are legitimate non-retaliatory reasons (absences) | Court: disputed timeline and surrounding facts preclude summary judgment; jury must resolve causation |
| Whether Ergo's proffered non-retaliatory reason is pretextual | Robinson: inconsistent timing and communications (July vs. Sept.) undermine Ergo’s stated absences rationale and suggest pretext | Ergo: absences in July justify revocation and explain decision | Held: disputed facts about when decision occurred and shifting explanations are probative of pretext; jury issue |
| Whether decisionmakers knew of protected activity (causal link via knowledge) | Robinson: evidence (emails, cc’s, HR involvement) supports inference decisionmakers knew of EEOC complaint | Ergo: Robinson’s supervisor allegedly unrelated to harassment claims and therefore unlikely to retaliate | Held: evidence permits reasonable inference that decisionmakers knew of complaint; factual dispute for jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation standard: materially adverse actions that would deter a reasonable worker)
- McGrath v. Clinton, 666 F.3d 1377 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (elements of a Title VII retaliation claim)
- Pardo-Kronemann v. Donovan, 601 F.3d 599 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (lateral transfers/reassignments can be adverse actions depending on effect on employment terms)
- Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (temporal proximity alone may be insufficient to show causation)
- Geleta v. Gray, 645 F.3d 408 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (once employer gives nondiscriminatory reason, plaintiff must show evidence from which jury could infer retaliatory motive)
- Giles v. Transit Emps. Fed. Credit Union, 794 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (courts do not routinely require plaintiffs to submit additional evidence beyond rebutting employer’s explanation to avoid summary judgment)
- Rochon v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 1211 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (causal connection may be shown by employer knowledge plus adverse action shortly after)