Thuc Tran v. Sonic Industries Services, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12693
| W.D. Okla. | 2011Background
- Tran, a Vietnamese female, worked in Sonic’s marketing department as director and research analyst from May 2003 to July 2009.
- In June 2007, Sonic restructured the marketing department; Matt Schein became director of marketing and strategy planning without a formal posting or interviews.
- In August 2008, Townsend resigned; Macaluso became CMO, creating a vacancy in a prior VP-level position, with no posted opening or documented qualifications besides litigation materials.
- Schein was transferred to the vacated role, and Trey Taylor was appointed director of marketing strategy and planning in Schein’s former position; Schein’s prior role was renamed, and Taylor’s promotion occurred without posting or interviews.
- On September 1, 2008, Taylor became Tran’s direct supervisor; in November 2008, Tran received a Premi-Yum rating from her former supervisor, Schein, and Taylor participated in performance discussions.
- Tran was terminated in July 2009 after management indicators, including a timeliness issue with a report, and a May 2009 incident; she filed an EEOC charge on July 20, 2009.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title VII failure-to-promote claim is time-barred | Tran timely filed her 2009 claim within 300 days of Taylor’s 2008 promotion. | The 2009 EEOC charge was not filed within 300 days of the 2007 Schein promotion and the 2008 Taylor promotion. | Summary judgment granted on the Title VII failure-to-promote claim due to untimely EEOC filing. |
| Whether remaining §1981 and Title VII discrimination claims survive for pretext review | Defendant’s proffered reasons for Taylor’s promotion and Tran’s termination were pretextual due to bias. | Reasons were legitimate, non-discriminatory and not pretextual; subjectivity alone does not prove pretext. | No genuine dispute on pretext; Defendant’s reasons not shown to be pretextual; summary judgment on remaining claims granted. |
| Whether discriminatory comments by supervisor establish pretext | Remarks about disliking 'aggressive' women and accent bias show bias in decisionmaking. | Isolated comments insufficient to prove pretext without link to the termination. | Insufficient to prove pretext; isolated comments did not connect to the termination. |
| Whether the vagueness or subjectivity of the manager’s complaints shows pretext | Taylor’s complaints were vague and subjective, indicating bias. | Subjectivity alone does not establish pretext given other evidence of performance concerns. | Subjective evaluations alone do not create triable issues of pretext. |
| Whether plaintiff was treated differently from similarly situated employees | White male employee also placed on PIP and terminated similarly to Tran. | Similar actions occurred but not conclusively showing bias; timing and conduct support nondiscriminatory reasons. | Plaintiff failed to show differential treatment sufficient to defeat summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. W.H. Braum, Inc., 347 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2003) (exhaustion and timeliness of EEOC charge; jurisdictional prerequisite)
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1982) (timeliness defense becomes affirmative defense; filing within 300 days rule)
- McBride v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 281 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 2002) (burden to prove jurisdictional exhaustion; timing considerations)
- Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2000) (framework for evaluating prima facie case and pretext in discrimination claims)
- Jaramillo v. Colo. Judicial Dep't, 427 F.3d 1303 (10th Cir. 2005) (pretext and evidence requirements for discrimination claims)