Small v. Alpine Access Inc. and/or Sykes Inc., 2:19-cv-02722

Pro se plaintiff Kajuana L. Small worked for defendants Sykes Enterprises/Alpine Access as a customer-service agent from Nov. 2012 to Feb. 7, 2019 and alleges repeated racialized phone calls (sometimes identifying managers as callers), pay/hours problems, and delayed/denied raises.
Small joined an FLSA class action (settlement payment received Feb. 4, 2019) and was transferred among several teams; she alleges adverse actions after joining the class and after uploading a profile picture.
On Feb. 7, 2019, Intuit requested removal of numerous agents; Small was among 123 employees terminated that day (a termination spreadsheet with employees’ races was attached to her complaint).
Small filed a charge with the Tennessee Human Rights Commission on Mar. 26, 2019 (alleging race and national-origin discrimination and retaliation) and then filed this Title VII suit on Oct. 23, 2019; she did not timely oppose defendants’ summary judgment motion.
The magistrate judge deemed defendants’ asserted facts undisputed for summary-judgment purposes and recommended granting summary judgment on grounds including statute of limitations, failure to allege protected activity under Title VII, lack of employer knowledge, lack of causation, and failure to identify proper comparators.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Statute of limitations (timeliness)	Small asserts discrimination/retaliation dating back to 2012–2018	Claims before 300‑day cut‑off are time‑barred	Acts before May 30, 2018 are barred; only later acts could proceed
Retaliation for joining FLSA class / uploading picture	Small says she was retaliated for joining the FLSA class and for adding a picture	Participation in FLSA suit is not Title VII protected; no evidence decisionmakers knew	Claim fails: FLSA participation not a Title VII protected activity and no evidence of employer knowledge
Retaliation for complaining to HR (opposition)	Small says she complained to HR about managers impersonating callers and using racial slurs	Defendants say no causal connection; employer acted for account performance reasons	Court assumed complaints could be protected but found no admissible evidence of but‑for causation; retaliation claim fails
Discrimination (termination / failure to promote / pay)	Small alleges termination, denial of raises/promotions, race/color/national-origin discrimination	Defendants: no similarly situated non‑protected comparator; color claim not exhausted administratively	Court: plaintiff failed to establish prima facie discrimination (no adequate comparators); color claim unexhausted; summary judgment for defendants

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary‑judgment burden of production principles)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation adverse‑action standard)
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (but‑for causation required for Title VII retaliation)
Crawford v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cty., 555 U.S. 271 (2009) (scope of opposition clause under Title VII)
Niswander v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 529 F.3d 714 (6th Cir. 2008) (participation clause protects involvement in Title VII proceedings)
Imwalle v. Reliance Med. Prods., Inc., 515 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2008) (definition of direct evidence of retaliation)