A federal district court recently reinforced how an employer's shifting reasons for its actions may affect a discrimination case, basically, precluding summary judgment. The plaintiff, an employee, sued her employer for discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and associated state law claims. The plaintiff claimed that she was transferred to a lateral position in a different division because of her gender and because she actively supported the gender discrimination claims of other employees. The County filed a motion for summary judgment. The parties conceded that the plaintiff had engaged in protected activity. One of the issues involved the shifting rationale for the action.
Because the plaintiff met her burden of proving a prima facie case of retaliation, the burden shifted to the County to offer a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason. The County offered more than one legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the transfer. The plaintiff, however, offered evidence that the County's reason for the transfer shifted over time from one reason to another. The court concluded that the shift from one reason to another was sufficient to create an issue of fact for a jury whether the non-discriminatory reasons offered by the County were pretexts for unlawful discrimination and retaliation. Accordingly, the court denied the County's motion for summary judgment.
This case is a cautionary tale for employers to give the honest, or at least consistent, reason for an employment action at the beginning, and not profer differing and conflicting reasons over time.
Coyne v. County of San Diego, No. 08-CV-639 JLS (CAB) Dec. 21, 2009
