Russell v. Kronos Incorporated
3:18-cv-04525
N.D. Cal.Dec 11, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Tala Russell, a Hispanic female, worked at Kronos as a Senior Sales Executive from Sept. 2013 to July 2017 and was terminated for purported poor performance.
- Kronos documents performance issues across FY2015 (≈66% quota), FY2016 (claimed 95% but disputed due to split commissions), and FY2017 (≈9% through Q3); supervisors drafted a Letter of Concern (Oct. 2016), issued an LOC (Apr. 2017), and placed Russell on a PIP (June 2017).
- Decision to terminate (July 17, 2017) was made by supervisor Chris Lipscomb with HR and senior management approval; Russell was replaced by a woman.
- Russell alleged sex, national-origin, and race discrimination (Title VII & FEHA), retaliation (Title VII & FEHA), failure to prevent discrimination (FEHA), and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
- Kronos moved for summary judgment on all claims; the court evaluated McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting, admissible evidence of comparators, and pretext evidence.
- Court granted Kronos summary judgment on all Russell’s claims, leaving only Kronos’s counterclaims pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination (Title VII & FEHA) | Russell says termination was motivated by sex; points to disparate treatment and derogatory comments | Kronos says termination was for legitimate nondiscriminatory performance reasons documented over years | Summary judgment for Kronos: Russell failed to show pretext or adequate comparators; stray remarks insufficient |
| National-origin & race discrimination (Title VII & FEHA) | Russell claims similarly situated non‑Hispanic employees were treated better | Kronos says performance-based, nondiscriminatory reasons; plaintiff's comparator evidence inadequate | Summary judgment for Kronos: no triable issue of discriminatory intent/pretext |
| Retaliation (Title VII & FEHA) | Russell contends she complained and was then terminated | Kronos says termination was for performance; Russell did not clearly communicate protected complaints of discrimination | Summary judgment for Kronos: no protected activity shown and no causal pretext established |
| Failure to prevent discrimination/harassment (FEHA §12940(k)) | Employer failed to take reasonable steps after discriminatory conduct | Kronos says no actionable discrimination occurred and it lacked notice of protected discrimination | Summary judgment for Kronos: derivative of dismissed claims and no evidence employer knew or should have known |
| Wrongful discharge (public policy) | Derivative of discrimination/retaliation claims | Derivative defense fails if underlying claims fail | Summary judgment for Kronos: claim dismissed as derivative |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (party may meet summary‑judgment burden by pointing to lack of evidence on an essential element)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for disparate treatment claims)
- Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., 615 F.3d 1151 (elements of prima facie discrimination case)
- Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163 (pretext standards and specificity required)
- Beck v. UFCW, Local 99, 506 F.3d 874 (similarly situated comparator requirements)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (evaluating pretext and sufficiency of evidence)
- Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (protected activity must convey a reasonable belief of unlawful discrimination)