Judge rules for employee in disability‐discrimination claim
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30750 |
| Published date | 01 April 2020 |
| Date | 01 April 2020 |
APRIL 2020 NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR
11
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company • All rights reserved
DOI: 10.1002/nba
and his possible explanations were irrelevant. When
the plaintiff told her the therapists weren’t following
his instructions and were making false accusations,
she allegedly responded that he was paranoid.
According to the plaintiff, his supervisor then
added to his problems in many ways.
That supervisor gave him a written negative pro-
ciency report in mid-December. Instead of signing
where indicated, the plaintiff wrote on it: “This eval-
uation was done unfairly and prejudiced.”
The chief of staff allegedly didn’t allow the plain-
tiff to appeal the report.
A few days later, the supervisor allegedly reported
to the chief of medicine that the plaintiff was “out
of control.”
The plaintiff was promptly red, and he led a
suit against the VA.
One of his claims was retaliation for engaging in
protected conduct.
The defendant led a motion to dismiss.
EMPLOYEE WINS ➔ The district court judge
ruled that writing the word “prejudiced” on the pro-
ciency report was protected by Title VII, because it
showed opposition to an unlawful employment prac-
tice when considered in the context of the allegations
about: (1) being an Asian man from South Korea,
(2) telling the therapists that English was his second
language and (3) the chief of medicine’s purported
comment about ring the plaintiff at any time.
The judge acknowledged that the plaintiff was
required to prove some connection between his
protected activity and being red but said one way
to establish that was to show a short period of time
between the two events. He ruled the plaintiff had
successfully achieved that goal by alleging that only
about a week had elapsed between writing the words
on the report and the termination.
Although the judge dismissed other portions of
the suit, he refused to dismiss the retaliation claim.
[Kil v. Wilkie, U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma, No. CIV-19-0215, 08/23/2019].
Disability
Judge rules for employee in disability-
discrimination claim
The plaintiff—who had chronic diverticulitis—
accepted the job of Bridgeport, Conn., benefits
coordinator in 2015.
When the plaintiff informed her supervisor shortly
after starting work in September about her unpredict-
able urgent needs to use the restroom, the supervisor
purportedly graciously responded that notication
wouldn’t be required for those restroom breaks.
However, the plaintiff claimed her supervisor soon
began to cause her a lot of problems.
She complained to the director in December that
her supervisor: (1) had changed her mind and re-
quired the plaintiff to notify someone whenever she
went to the restroom, (2) yelled at her and (3) removed
several of her job responsibilities.
In January 2016, the plaintiff complained to the
director that the supervisor’s mistreatment had gotten
worse.
The supervisor sent a memo to the plaintiff in
early February that criticized her for: (1) having an
“inappropriate” attitude, (2) sending out letters with
mistakes, (3) failing to promptly respond to emails,
(4) using inappropriate language, and (5) refusing to
accept responsibility for her mistakes.
According to the plaintiff, she gave the director a
sealed envelope containing written documentation of
her complaints about the supervisor, but he returned
the envelope the same day without opening it.
The plaintiff was then notied that a process had
been initiated to terminate her.
After she was red in April, the plaintiff led a suit
that made claims that included disability discrimina-
tion, and retaliation for complaining about it.
The city led a motion for summary judgment,
maintaining that it had red the plaintiff for the
legitimate reason of poor performance.
The plaintiff responded that her evidence showed
that the stated reason was false because her super-
visor: (1) was hostile to her; (2) unfairly criticized
her work; (3) didn’t provide necessary training; (4)
removed some of her job responsibilities; (5) un-
reasonably changed the courtesy about reporting
restroom breaks; (6) reprimanded her in front of
co-workers; (7) never discussed a self- evaluation she
had to submit in November; (8) was rude, belittling
and dismissive; (9) wagged her nger at the plaintiff;
and (10) continuously changed protocols and proce-
dures for no good reason.
She also argued that the evidence showed that the
director: (1) failed to discuss her required November
self-evaluation, (2) didn’t investigate her complaints
and (3) refused to open the sealed envelope.
EMPLOYEE WINS ➔ The district court judge
ruled there was enough evidence for a jury to decide
whether the plaintiff was a victim of discrimination.
Turning to the retaliation claim, the judge said a
close temporal relationship between an employee’s
To continue reading
Request your trial