Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Fulkerson v. Amerititle, Inc.
Citation: 64 F. App'x 63Docket: No. 01-36163
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; April 24, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
Amy Fulkerson appeals the summary judgment granted to her former employer, AmeriTitle, Inc., concerning her employment-related claims, particularly those of pregnancy discrimination under Title VII and Oregon law. The court reviews the summary judgment de novo and the denial of the motion to bifurcate for abuse of discretion. The court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands the case. Fulkerson has established a prima facie case for discrimination, demonstrating membership in a protected class, satisfactory job performance, and termination, while also showing that similarly situated employees not in her protected class were treated more favorably. AmeriTitle concedes the first and third elements were met. Fulkerson provided evidence of satisfactory performance through positive evaluations until her pregnancy disclosure. AmeriTitle argues her performance was unsatisfactory due to her admission of lying about illness, but the court notes that establishing a prima facie case requires minimal proof and does not consider the defendant's nondiscriminatory rationale. Additionally, there is a material dispute regarding whether AmeriTitle was aware of her lie before her termination. Fulkerson also met the fourth element by presenting evidence that a male employee, Andy Melsness, who lied about his medical excuse, was treated more leniently than she was. The court finds that the discrepancies in treatment between Fulkerson and Melsness support her claims. Direct evidence of discriminatory intent is indicated through remarks made by AmeriTitle’s president regarding Fulkerson's pregnancy. Fulkerson has established a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge, as there is a material factual dispute over whether AmeriTitle's reason for her termination—a supposed lie about Las Vegas—was pretextual. The key witness for this claim testified that she did not discuss the alleged lie until after Fulkerson's termination, and AmeriTitle did not mention this reason in the discharge documentation. Furthermore, discrepancies in treatment compared to another employee, Andy Melsness, also suggest pretext. Fulkerson's claims related to a hostile work environment and intentional infliction of emotional distress were rejected; the remarks cited were deemed insufficiently severe or pervasive, and the conduct did not meet the legal threshold for emotional distress claims. The denial of her motion to bifurcate the trial was deemed moot following the summary judgment grant. The court affirmed the decision on most claims while reversing the summary judgment regarding discriminatory discharge, remanding for further proceedings. The court also clarified that it reviewed the entire record favorably toward Fulkerson, rejecting AmeriTitle's assertions regarding the authenticity of evidence and the acceptance of its factual statements. The burden-shifting framework applicable to Title VII cases also applies under Oregon law in federal court.