As we know, protected status does not insulate an employee from the consequences of inappropriate conduct. Today we discuss the finer points of discriminatory intent with a case that illustrates the distinction between the basic threshold required to establish a claim for an unlawful adverse employment action because of a protected status and facts so speculative that a claim cannot be supported even at the preliminary stages of litigation.
In Villaume v. iTradeNetwork, Inc., the plaintiff, Villaume, worked as a Senior Account Executive for the defendant, iTradeNetwork Inc. She had disclosed a disability in her hiring documents and to managers and co-workers during the course of her employment. She was successful in her position, ranking number one in sales on multiple occasions, qualifying for the President’s Club for regularly exceeding sales quotas, and receiving a promotion. However, approximately two years into her employment, Villaume was the subject of a complaint for conduct during a sales meeting. It was alleged that she was angry and intoxicated throughout the meeting and used obscenities with a Vice President.
According to Villaume, she had experienced a panic attack related to her disability that required her to excuse herself for a period of time. Eventually, she “collected” herself and returned to the meeting. An investigation found she engaged in the conduct complained of and that her actions were unprofessional. She was given a final written warning and subsequently placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).
Villaume disputed the PIP as inaccurate and claimed the investigation, warning and PIP were the result of discrimination and retaliation based on her disability. Shortly thereafter Villaume took an FMLA leave to address medical issues she attributed to stress and anxiety related her work environment. During her leave, iTrade’s investigation of her complaints of discrimination and retaliation concluded with a finding of no policy violations. She was informed of the findings upon her return.
About a month after returning from her FMLA leave, the sales team was restructured and all members of the team were required to reapply for their positions. Villaume, though qualified, was not selected to return to her previous role. Approximately three months after going on protected leave her employment was ended.
Villaume filed a complaint alleging discrimination based on false accusations and inaccurate findings of the investigation into her conduct at the sales meeting, reprisal for failure to rehire based on reporting a disability and retaliatory discrimination based on her FMLA leave.
iTrade brought a motion to dismiss Villuame’s, allegations of discrimination, retribution and retaliation for failure to state a claim. The district court’s evaluation was based on whether the facts alleged by the Villaume were sufficient for the court to reasonably infer iTrade acted unlawfully in the decision to terminate. The court found that Villaume had failed to allege facts that could plausibly establish iTrade’s adverse action was in response to her documented disability or protected leave.
Although the alleged facts plausibly established a disability of which her employer was aware, there were “no allegations of direct evidence that might connect a retaliatory motive to” iTrade’s decision. Villaume’s disagreement with the conclusions of the investigation without further support, did not establish an inference of discriminatory animus as the basis for the findings, the warning or the PIP. Instead the court found the facts pled established only that the investigator did not believe Villaume’s version of events.
In addition, the court found Villaume’s claims of retribution were not supported by allegations that others hired after the restructure were less qualified than Villaume absent additional facts to establish the qualifications held by each of the candidates.
With respect the FMLA retaliation claim, the court concluded no direct facts were alleged to support her claims that ending her employment was related to the FMLA leave. The court considered the timing between the protected leave and the termination and found the timing was not sufficient on its own to establish a causal connection. As Villaume had already amended the complaint, the court dismissed the case with prejudice, precluding any further opportunity to plead with more specificity.
While the employer’s success hinged on a procedural ruling in which the Court found factual deficiencies in Villaume’s allegations, this case demonstrates the court’s analysis when evaluating threshold elements of discrimination-based claims and whether there are sufficient facts to establish a “plausible” causal connection between an adverse action and an employee’s protected status. It also highlights the importance of adhering to your company’s complaint and investigation procedures. If you, or your organization, are in need of assistance with investigation or discipline of employees, contact Wiley Reber Law for legal advice that works.