Terri Smyth-Riding v. Sciences and Engineering Services
699 F. App'x 146
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Smyth-Riding was hired in June 2007 as SES’s Director of Human Resources and reported initially to Dr. Hyo Sang Lee (CEO); she later reported to Director of Operations Robert Serino.
- She raised concerns internally about potentially discriminatory hiring and firing practices (age, familial-status questions, racial composition of applicant pools, and specific hiring decisions) but never complained directly to Dr. Lee.
- Repeated conflicts arose between Smyth-Riding and SES financial controller Daniel Joe over hiring, firing, and access to a salary/bonus database; Richard Lee (Dr. Lee’s son) made inappropriate remarks about hiring “young” women.
- In January 2009 Dr. Lee—who testified he alone made the decision—terminated Smyth-Riding, citing poor fit and reduced HR needs in Columbia; her duties were reassigned to Huntsville without a direct like-for-like replacement.
- Smyth-Riding sued for retaliation (Title VII and § 1981) and sex discrimination (Title VII). After a jury heard evidence, SES and Dr. Lee moved for judgment as a matter of law, which the district court granted for lack of causation; Smyth-Riding appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smyth‑Riding proved causation for retaliation (Title VII and § 1981) | Smyth‑Riding argued her complaints about discriminatory practices and disputes with Joe were protected activity, and temporal proximity, shifting explanations, and evidence Dr. Lee knew she was “agitating” employees support a causal inference | Defendants argued Dr. Lee was the sole decisionmaker and there was no evidence he knew about Smyth‑Riding’s protected complaints, so he could not have acted in retaliation | Court affirmed JMOL: no evidence Dr. Lee knew of protected activity, so causation element fails |
| Whether cat’s‑paw liability (subordinate animus) supports retaliation | Smyth‑Riding argued Joe or Richard Lee influenced Dr. Lee and their animus led to her termination/pay treatment | Defendants argued neither subordinate was a supervisor with authority to cause the adverse action and no evidence links their animus to Dr. Lee’s decision | Court affirmed: no evidence Joe or Richard intended or proximately caused the firing; cat’s‑paw not shown |
| Whether Smyth‑Riding proved sex discrimination in discharge (Title VII) | Smyth‑Riding argued discriminatory motive can be inferred from replacement of duties by a male subordinate and other circumstantial evidence | Defendants argued absence of evidence that sex motivated the firing and that Dr. Lee both hired and fired her creates a strong inference against discrimination | Court affirmed JMOL: no affirmative evidence of sex‑based motive and same‑actor inference applies |
| Whether temporal proximity or inconsistent employer explanations sufficed to go to jury | Smyth‑Riding relied on timing and alleged shifting reasons as evidence of pretext and causation | Defendants pointed to lack of knowledge by decisionmaker and legitimate business explanations | Court held temporal proximity and shifting explanations do not establish causation where decisionmaker lacked knowledge of protected activity or where no reasonable jury could find but‑for causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (articulates cat’s‑paw theory: supervisor’s biased act that is a proximate cause of adverse action can impose employer liability)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (Title VII retaliation requires but‑for causation)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (court considers strength of plaintiff’s prima facie case and all evidence when reviewing judgment as a matter of law)
- Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty, 145 F.3d 653 (4th Cir. 1998) (employer must have knowledge of protected activity for retaliation causation)
- Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., 354 F.3d 277 (4th Cir. 2004) (limits on extending cat’s‑paw liability to non‑supervisory coworkers)
- Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954 (4th Cir. 1996) (same‑actor inference: hirer and firer being the same person creates a strong inference of non‑discrimination)