An employee of a technical professional services company brought suit against her
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Jacobs Engineering Group hired Stephanie Turner in April 2006 as an Administrative Services Support Manager in its Baton Rouge, Louisiana office. In that position, Turner was responsible for the administrative services group, which assisted project managers with tasks like completing paperwork and preparing reports. She also oversaw the document control group, which was responsible for updating Jacobs’ system with drawings and revisions for different projects. Turner reported to the Manager of Engineering, who was Bill Broussard briefly in early 2008, then Eric Balkom from mid-2008 until the end of Turner’s employment.
In May 2008, Turner brought a complaint to Holly Powell in the human resources department regarding unequal pay based on gender discrimination. Turner also contends that she was subjected to several offensive sexual comments during the last six months she worked for Jacobs. Between May and October of 2008, Turner reported to Powell a number of instances of race and gender discrimination directed at other individuals. In June 2008, Turner notified Powell of her concern regarding Jacobs’ failure to compensate employees for training sessions conducted during the lunch hour. Also in June 2008, Turner reported to Powell that Broussard was retaliating against her.
In May 2008, Broussard conducted a performance evaluation of Turner. Some ratings of “unsatisfactory” were made. After comments by Turner, the evaluation was amended to remove an unsatisfactory rating in the integrity category. The evaluation urged improvement in understanding the systems and processes of the support services group, in her problem resolution skills, and her candor when implementing decisions that impact subordinates.
In October 2008, an employee in Turner’s group complained to Turner’s supervisor, Balkom, about Turner. This led Balkom to discuss Turner’s performance with his manager, Jere Ducote, Powell, and long-time Jacobs employees in Turner’s group. According to Balkom, Turner’s subordinates reported that she was “not properly managing the staffing, documents [were] getting behind,” and interactions between document control and administrative services were strained. Additionally, Balkom observed that Turner’s “two groups were not working together, that [Turner] seemed not to want to deal with people issues, that [Turner] seemed not to understand the roles of the two positions and how they interacted and how they affected the project execution.” Balkom created Turner’s performance evaluation based on his discussion with Turner’s coworkers and subordinates and his own observations. Also in October 2008, Turner informed Powell that she had contacted the EEOC.
Prior to speaking with Turner, Balkom spoke with Powell about an alternate position for Turner. They determined that based on Turner’s background in IT and
Turner brought this suit in Louisiana state court in September 2009. Jacobs removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana and filed an answer. On February 25, 2011, Jacobs moved for summary judgment as to Turner’s state law claims. On March 9, Turner moved for leave to file a supplemental and amended complaint adding parallel claims under Title VII. Leave was granted by the magistrate judge. Jacobs then filed a motion to strike the amended pleadings and for reconsideration before the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge denied the motions and Jacobs appealed to the district court. The district court affirmed the magistrate’s order and allowed Jacobs to file an additional motion for summary judgment. Jacobs filed a second motion for summary judgment on April 22. On May 6, 2011,
DISCUSSION
We review a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo. Stewart v. Miss. Transp. Comm’n,
Turner argues that the district court erred in dismissing her Title VII retaliation claim. Specifically, Turner argues that the district court failed to infer knowledge of the decision maker and failed to find she had presented sufficient evidence to show pretext. Jacobs argues the district court’s order should be affirmed for these reasons: (1) Turner should not have been allowed to amend her complaint to bring this claim; (2) Turner failed to satisfy her prima facie case; and (3) Turner failed to show Jacobs’ legitimate, nonretaliatory reason was pretext. Because we conclude that Turner failed to establish a prima facie case, we do not address Jacobs’ alternative contentions of improper amendment of the complaint or that Turner failed to show pretext.
To withstand summary judgment on her Title VII retaliation claim, Turner must demonstrate that (1) she participated in protected conduct, (2) she suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) there was a causal connection between her protected conduct and the adverse employment action. Stewart,
Turner offers the following as evidence of a causal connection between her protected conduct and the termination of her employment at Jacobs: (1) that her employment was terminated within a matter of days of reporting to Powell that she had contacted the EEOC; (2) that Balkom met with Ducote and Powell, both of whom had knowledge of her complaints prior to meeting with Turner; (3) that Balkom stated that she was “not a team player” despite a positive review in leadership five months before; (4) that her final performance review was riddled with inconsisten
Turner must present at least some evidence that the decision maker was aware of the protected activity. Manning v. Chevron Chem. Co.,
Although Turner states that she has come forth with evidence that Balkom exhibited hostility to her, she only points to his statement in her final performance review that she was “not a team player.” Although this statement could refer to Turner’s complaints to HR, the performance review noted another potential basis for that comment in the “Management and Leadership” section. The review stated that Turner “[d]oes not provide adequate direction to staff. Does not support of the team. Does not seem to be aware of how the document control and PAA groups should function.” Turner urges us to infer from this single team-player comment during her final performance review and Balkom’s discussion of Turner’s performance with other Jacobs employees that Balkom knew about her complaints and that knowledge contributed to his determination to terminate her employment. We must draw only reasonable inferences in Turner’s favor. Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr.,
In the alternative, Turner argues that Balkom is the “cat’s paw.” See Staub,
Turner does not allege that the employee who complained to Balkom about her conduct as manager or the employees Balkom contacted to discuss her employment had knowledge of her protected activity or had any retaliatory motive. Furthermore,
AFFIRMED.
Notes
Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
. A "cat’s paw” case is one in which an employee seeks to hold his or her "employer liable for the animus of a supervisor who was not charged with making the ultimate employment decision.” Id.