Court: District Court, D. Minnesota; April 20, 2015; Federal District Court
Yordanos Haile, an Ethiopian woman, alleges discrimination based on race and national origin, retaliation for complaints regarding pay and treatment, and failure to accommodate her pregnancy by her former employer, HMS Host, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. HMS Host has filed for summary judgment on all claims.
Haile began her employment as a cashier in 2001, was promoted to lead sales associate within a year, and managed cash register operations and money handling until her termination in September 2011. HMS Host's standard procedures included using a "Micros" electronic key card to track register transactions and securing cash in tamper-evident bags at the end of shifts. The company policy stipulated that if a cash discrepancy over $50 was found, the employee would be suspended pending an investigation.
On September 11, 2011, a cash discrepancy of $50.02 was identified during a review of Haile's transactions. A Funds Discrepancy Notice was issued on September 15, after which Haile's manager, Jennifer Risch, conducted an investigation but could not determine the source of the overage. The collective bargaining agreement required notification of discrepancies within five working days, which was not met in this case. Summary judgment will be granted in favor of HMS Host.
On September 17, Risch issued a Corrective Action Written Warning Notice to Haile for a cash overage and suspended her. Following this, Haile met with HMS Host representatives to discuss the incident, mentioning that her coworker Eyob had seen Risch at her register during her break on September 10. Haile requested a review of video footage, but was informed the camera was inoperative and Eyob was not questioned about the incident. Haile's employment was terminated on September 21, 2011, due to the cash overage and failure to sign out cash bags and keys, in violation of HMS Host's cash handling policy. She filed a charge with the EEOC on October 18, 2011, and received a right-to-sue letter, leading her to initiate legal action on February 12, 2014, alleging multiple counts against HMS Host, including claims of race and national-origin discrimination, retaliation, and sex discrimination. HMS Host has moved for summary judgment, asserting that Haile's MHRA claims are barred by the statute of limitations, as she did not file her civil action within the required one-year period following her termination. The Court confirmed that Haile did not file with a local commission or indicate a desire for her EEOC charge to be cross-filed, resulting in the expiration of the statute of limitations on her MHRA claims. Consequently, the Court is inclined to grant HMS Host's motion on these counts.
Haile asserts a Title VII claim against HMS Host, alleging her termination was based on race and national origin, which Title VII prohibits. To succeed, she must establish a prima facie case by demonstrating she is part of a protected group, met her employer's legitimate expectations, faced an adverse employment action, and presented facts suggesting discrimination. The analysis follows the McDonnell Douglas framework, as she relies solely on indirect evidence.
Her claim falters on the fourth element. She argues she was treated differently from similarly situated employees. First, she cites an employee named “Manny,” who, despite having discrepancies, was not terminated; however, Manny is also black and Ethiopian, disqualifying him as a valid comparator. She also mentions “Kenny,” who retained his job after a cash discrepancy under a prior policy, which is irrelevant as the policies differed.
Haile presents additional arguments regarding maternity leave length, differing work hours, and disciplinary actions involving other employees, but these do not link directly to race or national origin discrimination. The Court concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support an inference of discrimination. Consequently, Haile has not established a prima facie case, leading to the Court granting summary judgment in favor of HMS Host on Count I.
Haile claims her termination from HMS Host violated Title VII due to retaliatory motives. Title VII prohibits discrimination against employees for opposing unlawful employment practices. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the McDonnell Douglas framework, she must demonstrate (1) engagement in protected conduct, (2) suffering a materially adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link between the two. Although the court did not assess whether her actions constituted protected conduct, it concluded that her claim fails on the causation element.
Haile identified three instances of protected conduct: (1) complaining to the union about reduced hours in February 2011, (2) reporting treatment by Risch during her pregnancy in 2010, and (3) refusing to restrict minority employees from clocking in early. However, the court found no sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between these actions and her termination.
Haile argued that HMS Host's late notification of a cash discrepancy and refusal to investigate Risch's involvement indicated retaliation. However, the court noted that HMS Host complied with its policies regarding the discrepancy notification timeline. Furthermore, Haile's assertion concerning Risch's actions was based on hearsay and lacked personal knowledge, making it inadmissible. Consequently, there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding causation, leading to the decision to grant summary judgment in favor of HMS Host on Count III.
Haile asserts a claim for pregnancy discrimination under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). At the motion-to-dismiss stage, she voluntarily dropped her ADA claim. Her brief primarily focuses on the ADA, referencing Chalfant v. Titan Distribution, Inc. to outline the elements of such a claim, but she fails to establish any material factual dispute regarding her PDA claim. Consequently, the Court is not obligated to search the record for potential issues of fact and will grant summary judgment in favor of HMS Host on Count V. The Court concludes by ordering that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and Haile’s Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, the analysis of reprisal under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) does not support her argument, as the examples provided fail to show that similarly situated employees were treated differently, particularly regarding cash discrepancies. Haile’s claim that her refusal to testify against a colleague was protected is also disregarded due to a lack of supporting evidence in the record.
