Kenney v. Aspen Technologies, Inc. - Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Facts: Karen Kenney (“Kenney”) worked for Aspen Technologies, Inc. (“Aspen”) on a few occasions. Initially, Kenney worked at the company as a plant manager for four years but she was perceived as being too harsh in her interactions with hourly workers and allegedly created friction among the management team. Kenney left to take a job elsewhere but was later recruited to come back to Aspen after a seven year absence from the company. Aspen sought to have Kenney “tighten the ship” as to Aspen’s employees. However, in the first three months of Kenney’s rehire, turnover sharply increased at Aspen. (It is worth noting that employee retention at Aspen had apparently been an issue before, however, it was reported to have spiked during Kenney’s return. In fact, some employees stated they quit because of Kenney.) This turnover was a problem for Aspen as they were in need of a consistent workforce to keep up with production.
In addition to the high turnover rate being attributed to Kenney’s management style, two formal complaints were lodged against her for alleged mistreatment of employees. One complaint was written by the husband of an Aspen employee that identified five instances the employee’s husband considered to establish a “pattern of ongoing intended harassment.” Another employee’s complaint alleged that Kenney’s conduct damaged employee morale and caused “everyone, every day [to be] on edge.”
Kenney was ultimately terminated just three months after returning to Aspen. A compliant was thereafter filed in federal court in which Kenney alleged that Aspen terminated her in retaliation for her complaints about alleged discriminatory practices at the company. Kenney alleged that shortly after she returned to Aspen, she spoke to Aspen’s Human Resources manager about a perceived difficulty in obtaining employees. The Human Resources manager stated that Aspen advertised for employees in the counties that bordered Aspen’s facilities. When Kenney questioned why Aspen was not recruiting employees from Detroit or Flint, she was allegedly told “something to the effect of black people, colored people.” Kenney claims that afterward, she complained to Aspen’s Vice President and although she could not recall the exact conversation, she claimed that the Vice President confirmed that Aspen’s principal shareholder had a problem with black people. Although the Human Resources manager and Vice President recognized that they met with Kenney, they claim the discussion focused on Aspen’s recruitment efforts and Kenney did not bring up any complaints about discriminatory activity.
In regard to the second alleged example of retaliatory conduct, Kenney alleged that Aspen “zeroed in on” three black employees that apparently collected unemployment while still working at Aspen. Kenney claimed that the company did not go after white employees that were engaged in similar conduct.
The district court granted Aspen’s motion for summary judgment. Kenney subsequently appealed.
Holding: The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that as Kenney’s lawsuit against Aspen had no direct evidence that the company violated Title VII by retaliating against her for complaints about allegedly racist conduct by the Human Resources manager, the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework would dictate the analysis of this claim. To meet her initial burden, Kenney would have to show 1) that she engaged in protected activity under Title VII; 2) Aspen knew that she exercised her protected rights; 3) an adverse employment action was subsequently taken against her; and 4) Kenney’s protected activity was the but for causation of the adverse employment action. If Kenney could meet this initial burden, Aspen would then be required to provide a “legitimate, non discriminatory reason” for its action. If Aspen met its burden, Kenney would then have to demonstrate that Aspen’s preferred reason was a mere the context for discrimination.
Kenney’s Complaint About Aspen’s Hiring Practices
The Court made quick work of the first three elements of McDonnell Douglas and found that they were established. The analysis then turned to causation. Whether protected activity was then but for causation of an adverse employment action depends upon the context in which that action occurred. The record established that Kenney was terminated two and a half months after her alleged complaint about Aspen’s discriminatory hiring practices. The Court held that a roughly 75 day delay between her protected activity and the adverse employment action, standing alone, was not a convincing case for establishing causation. Therefore, it was up to Kenney to establish other indica to support a causal connection. However, the Court found the record lacking. Kennedy did not dispute that after her alleged complaint to the Human Resources manager, two formal complaints were filed against her for harassing employees. She also could not establish another reason, beyond her managerial style, as the reason for an uptick in Aspen employees resigning.
Kenney’s Complaint About Aspen’s Differential Treatment of Employees
In regard to this portion of Kenney’s claim, the Court held that she failed to meet her burden to demonstrate how her purported complaints amounted to protected activity. The record established that when Kenney claims she complained about Aspen’s differential treatment of black and white employees (in regard to collecting unemployment while still working at Aspen), Kenney failed to state that the conduct was discriminatory or illegal. While the complaint need not have been lodged with a high degree of formality or precision, her complaint amounted to only a “vague charge of discrimination.” More evidence was therefore needed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Going one step further, the Court held that even if Kenney could establish she engaged in protected activity, she could not establish causation.
Judgment: The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment in favor of the employer on the grounds that the employee could not establish proximate causation between her alleged complaints to her employer about its discriminatory hiring practices (and differential treatment of black and white employees) and her termination approximately 75 days after she lodged her complaints.
The Takeaway: This was an interesting case and one that I feel could have survived summary judgment had just a few facts been different. For one, had Aspen terminated Kenney immediately (or within a few days/weeks) after she lodged her complaints, she would have likely had a stronger case to show proximate causation. As well, had the record been better/clearer to establish the exact conversation between Kenney and the Human Resources manager (specifically in regard to what Aspen’s principal shareholder did/did not say about black workers), that would have gone a long way in bolstering Kenney’s suit. With that being said, given the standard of review when reviewing a granting of summary judgment, Kenney was already facing an uphill battle on appeal and one that she simply could not prevail upon based upon the evidence in the record.
Majority Opinion Judge: Judge Readler
Date: July 6, 2020
Comments
Post a Comment