Skip to main content

Failure to Return to Work Does Not Amount to a Claim of Discriminatory Termination



Andrews v. CBOCS West, Inc. - Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Facts:  Ruth Andrews (a white employee) worked as a server at Cracker Barrel from 1999 through 2007.  During a portion of this time, Andrews did not get along with her supervisor, J.J. Stewart (a black employee).  In 2002, Andrews filed a discrimination claim against Cracker Barrel and settled a year later.  Around the time of the settlement, Stewart told Andrews that she should "hope to God I never become GM because if I do, one of the first things I'm going to do is fire you."

In 2006, Stewart became general manager of the location that Andrews worked at and stated that it was a goal to make this location the first all-black Cracker Barrel.  Andrews documented her interactions with Stewart, and noted that Stewart allegedly made regular comments about Andrews' age.  Andrews kept record of several instances when Stewart called her "old woman", "old lady", and "grandma".  Andrews provided these notes to a Cracker Barrel employee relations specialist who investigated the complaints but found no action was necessary.

Stewart began encouraging Andrews to transfer to another Cracker Barrel location.  In November of 2007, Andrews asked Stewart to initiate the process of transferring to another location.  Andrews did not apply for a formal transfer, however.  Andrews then requested to take a three week paid vacation to cover the transfer period.  Stewart approved the time off.  After looking at the position that she would take at the new location, Andrews decided she did not want to transfer afterall.

Andrews was terminated on January 11, 2008 when Cracker Barrel's HR computer system generated a termination letter (this was apparently routine for employees who hadn't worked for more than three consecutive weeks).  Andrews brought suit and alleged discrimination.  The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Cracker Barrel.

Holding:  The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling and held that Andrews could not state a prima facie case of discrimination.  The Court noted that Andrews did not suffer a materially adverse employment action.  In this case, Andrews voluntarily left her position.  As a result, the Court held that "an employee who voluntarily resigns cannot be said to have experienced an adverse employment action."

In regard to any claim that Andrews was fired, the Court noted that the automatic termination occurred as a result of Andrews failing to show up for work after three straight weeks of paid leave.  The Court held that this automatic termination was an "administrative formality precipitated by her voluntary absence." 

The Takeaway:  At the outset, I will note that Andrews did the right thing by keeping a record of the alleged discriminatory conduct.  All too often, a party that alleges discrimination will fail to make a record or document alleged improper incidents.  That in turn makes it much more difficult to bring a claim, let alone prevail on it. 

In this case, what ultimately doomed Andrews was failing to formally apply for the transfer as well as her failure to return to her position (after she decided the new location was not a good fit for her).  While there might have been some actionable discriminatory conduct by Stewart, and in turn Cracker Barrel, Andrews failed to properly appear for work, as required, which doomed her discrimination claims.  

Judgment:  The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling and held that since Andrews failed to return from her vacation, she had no valid claim of discriminatory termination.  

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Sykes

Date:  February 14, 2014

Opinion:  http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D02-14/C:12-3399:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:1291695:S:0

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more