Sean Brister v. Mich. Bell Telephone Co.
705 F. App'x 356
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Elizabeth Jeup was a First Level Sales Manager at Michigan Bell (AT&T) from 1999–2011 and reported to CSM Cheryl Keeling and GM Geoffrey Lee.
- Jeup alleges Keeling pressured managers to target employees who used FMLA/disability leave and directed unethical sales practices; Keeling purportedly told Jeup “it’s them or you.”
- Jeup complained internally (email resignation notice, then EEO hotline) in August 2011, reporting verbal abuse and humiliation by Keeling; Lee had previously been told about complaints and spoke to Keeling.
- Jeup resigned (claimed constructive discharge) and sued for retaliation under the FMLA and the Michigan PWDCRA, arguing she was forced to quit because she opposed targeting FMLA users.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Michigan Bell; Jeup appealed. The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive discharge: did employer create intolerable conditions intended to force resignation? | Jeup: sustained harassment, public humiliation, degrading comments by supervisor compelled her to quit. | Michigan Bell: treatment, though improper, was not so intolerable or long-lasting, and management addressed complaints when informed. | No constructive discharge; conditions not objectively intolerable nor shown to be intended to force resignation. |
| Protected activity under FMLA: did Jeup oppose an unlawful FMLA practice? | Jeup: she refused to target employees who used FMLA/disability leave and reported supervisor’s abusive conduct. | Michigan Bell: dispute whether Jeup engaged in protected opposition to an FMLA violation and whether employer knew of such protected activity. | Jeup failed to establish she engaged in protected activity sufficient to sustain FMLA retaliation claim. |
| Causation between protected activity and adverse action | Jeup: supervisor’s hostility followed her refusal to target FMLA users and led to her resignation. | Michigan Bell: temporal span and remedial efforts undermine causal inference; no evidence employer intended to retaliate to force resignation. | Plaintiff failed to show the protected activity was a causal factor in a constructive discharge. |
| Evidentiary route: direct evidence vs. McDonnell Douglas framework | Jeup: contends comments and treatment directly show discriminatory motive. | Michigan Bell: there is no direct evidence; claims must be evaluated under McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting. | No direct evidence shown; even under circumstantial framework Jeup could not make a prima facie case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayhew v. Town of Smyrna, Tenn., 856 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and reasonable inference test)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination evidence)
- Arban v. W. Publ’g Corp., 345 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2003) (elements of FMLA retaliation prima facie case)
- Daugherty v. Sajar Plastics, Inc., 544 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2008) (definition of direct evidence of discrimination)
- Saroli v. Automation & Modular Components, Inc., 405 F.3d 446 (6th Cir. 2005) (constructive discharge elements)
- Logan v. Denny’s Inc., 259 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2001) (factors relevant to constructive discharge)
- Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004) (standard for intolerable working conditions in constructive discharge)