Alley v. Penguin Random House | Retaliation | Sexual Harassment

Issues

Sexual Harassment

Retaliation

Kristie Alley sued her former employer, Penguin Random House, for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and for breach of contract under Indiana law. Alley alleged that Penguin demoted her in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment and violated Indiana law in doing so. The district court concluded that no reasonable juror could find that Alley was retaliated against and granted Penguin’s motion for summary judgment on that claim.

Alley appealed that ruling, as well as the magistrate judge’s earlier dismissal of her state law breach of contract claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The Seventh Circuit affirmed both decisions.

Penguin’s senior vice president and the facility’s HR director met with Alley to learn if she had any further information about Guzman’s allegations. Alley forwarded the statements Guzman and Haines had provided to her, and Alley provided a statement alleging that she too had been sexually harassed by Lillard starting in 2015.

Cole Golladay, her former supervisor and Group Leader, later revealed that Alley had reported the harassment to him in 2017, and that he did not report despite his obligation to do so. Penguin terminated Lillard in late September 2019, and Alley was demoted from Group Leader to forklift operator.

Alley continued working at Penguin as a forklift operator until resigning in July 2020. Alley appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on her retaliation claim and dismissal of her breach of contract claim.

Alley alleged that Penguin demoted her in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. Alley argued that the steps she took to help Guzman report her allegations are protected under Title VII and that she was demoted in retaliation because of them. She also argued that the timing of her demotion was suspicious, Penguin’s reason for demoting her was pretextual, the dissimilar treatment of Golladay is proof that she was not actually demoted for failing to report harassment, and edits made in her management journal are further support of Penguin’s disingenuousness.

The key question was whether a reasonable juror could conclude that there was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action. Relevant evidence includes suspicious timing, ambiguous statements of animus, evidence other employees were treated differently, or evidence the employer’s proffered reason for the adverse action was pretextual.

In a 2-1 decision, the Seventh Circuit found that, under Title VII, Alley could not satisfy the first requirement of a retaliation claim. It was undisputed that Alley never reported Guzman’s sexual harassment allegations, and she admitted that she never made another attempt to call the ombudsperson or to communicate the complaint to an HR representative.

But, even if Alley did engage in a protected activity by attempting to help Guzman report, the Court found that that there was insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that Penguin retaliated against her.

Judge Jackson-Akiwumi dissented, and, for the reasons below, found that Alley made a sufficient showing to make it to a jury:

Alley was first told by Marlene Guzman of Lillard’s harassment on September 13, 2019.

On September 16 or 17, Alley received a written statement from Guzman and called several numbers listed in Penguin documents seeking to speak with the ombudsperson.

On September 18 and 19, another employee reported Lillard for harassing Guzman, and a roommate of Guzman submitted a corroborating statement.

On September 19 or 20, Alley was called into a meeting with two Human Resources managers, HR Director Bonnie Mann and Senior Vice President Lori DeReza, and was the first to disclose that she had received Guzman’s statement about harassment by Lillard.

Alley was subsequently demoted from her group leader position in a meeting on September 27.

Alley’s theory of retaliation was that Lillard retaliated against her for reporting his harassment.

A retaliation claim can survive summary judgment if the plaintiff produces enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude (1) they engaged in protected activity, (2) defendants took materially adverse action against them, and (3) there was a but-for causal connection between the two.

Alley’s behavior met this standard, as she listened to Guzman, agreed with her desire to report to the ombudsperson, took a statement from her, and made an honest attempt to contact HR.

Evidence of retaliation can be presented through circumstantial evidence such as suspicious timing, ambiguous statements of animus, evidence other employees were treated differently, or evidence the employer’s proffered reason for the adverse action was pretextual.

Alley contended that retaliation against her is evidenced in part by the treatment of Golladay, who received her report.

Penguin views Golladay’s conduct as irrelevant because Penguin did not discover it until two years after the fact, and the majority opinion concluded that this time gap justified Penguin’s different treatment of Alley and Golladay.

Alley was proceeding under the Ortiz framework and referencing Golladay as circumstantial evidence to show causation, but even if Alley was proceeding under the McDonnell Douglas framework, comparisons between employees may not be drawn too narrowly.

Penguin’s decision to demote Alley but let Golladay escape any form of discipline was particularly noteworthy given the difference in the level of egregiousness.

The majority opinion placed substantial weight on Penguin’s explanation that Golladay’s infraction was stale, making it less urgent to act upon than Alley’s, but a jury is entitled to read such an explanation as an ex-post justification for Alley’s demotion.

Alley presented evidence of changes made to her management journal two days after her demotion.

The majority opinion dismissed the dispute as irrelevant, noting that counsel for Alley was only able to state that the changed records were suspicious because they suggested Penguin was trying to build a record against Alley.

However, poorly substantiated and explained, downward changes to an employee’s ratings after the employee engages in protected activity are circumstantial evidence a plaintiff is allowed to rely on to show a causal link for a retaliation claim.

Penguin’s justification for demoting Alley is that she failed to report harassment, but Alley has presented evidence of working with Guzman to make a report to the ombudsperson.

Judge Jackson-Akiwumi believed there were disputed material facts about the nature of Alley’s activity that preclude summary judgment.

Why Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Victims Should Act Quickly and Hire an Attorney

Sexual harassment and retaliation are unlawful practices that can have devastating effects on the victims. It is crucial for victims to take swift action and seek the help of a qualified attorney. In this discussion, we will explore the top reasons why victims of sexual harassment or retaliation should act promptly and hire a specialized attorney for assistance.

Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations is a law that sets a strict deadline for filing a claim or initiating a lawsuit. For victims of sexual harassment and retaliation, the time to file a complaint may be limited, sometimes as short as 180 days, depending on the jurisdiction. Failing to take action within this timeframe can result in losing the opportunity to seek justice and obtain compensation. An experienced attorney can help navigate these deadlines and ensure that all necessary steps are taken in a timely manner.

Gathering Evidence

Evidence plays a critical role in sexual harassment and retaliation cases. The more time that passes, the higher the risk of losing valuable evidence. This may include witness statements, emails, text messages, and other documentation that can help substantiate the victim’s claims.

Emotional Support and Guidance

Sexual harassment and retaliation can cause significant emotional distress for victims. A specialized attorney can provide not only legal guidance but also emotional support throughout the process. They can help victims understand their rights, navigate the legal system, and advocate for their well-being, making the process less overwhelming and stressful.

Negotiating Settlements

Many sexual harassment and retaliation cases are resolved through settlements rather than going to trial. An experienced attorney can negotiate on the victim’s behalf, ensuring they receive the maximum compensation possible. This can include lost wages, emotional distress damages, and even punitive damages in some cases. Without an attorney’s expertise, victims may unknowingly accept a less favorable settlement.

Representation in Court

If the case goes to trial, a specialized attorney will be able to represent the victim effectively in court. They can present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and use their knowledge of the law to build a strong case. This increases the chances of a favorable outcome and helps ensure that justice is served.

Protection from Retaliation

Victims of sexual harassment may also face retaliation from their harasser, co-workers, or even their employer for reporting the incident or pursuing legal action. A skilled attorney can help protect the victim from further retaliation by monitoring the situation and taking appropriate legal action if necessary. This can help the victim feel more secure and supported during a difficult time.

In conclusion, victims of sexual harassment or retaliation should act quickly and hire a specialized attorney t

Alley v. Penguin Random House | Retaliation | Sexual Harassment 3

The post Alley v. Penguin Random House | Retaliation | Sexual Harassment appeared first on Chicago Employment Lawyers | Free Consultation.