Tammy Cranmer sued her former employer, Cordell & Cordell, P.C., in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, raising claims of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Before the court is Defendant Cordell & Cordell’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Tammy Cranmer began working as a paralegal for Cordell & Cordell in June 2018. In November 2021, Cranmer reported sexual harassment by attorney Chris Randle, who was subsequently terminated. Cranmer alleges that she began to be treated unfairly after reporting Randle. On March 1, 2022, Cranmer’s attorney sent a letter to Cordell & Cordell alleging retaliation by Kim Gray, Cranmer’s supervisor. In May 2022, Cranmer informed Gray that she needed paid leave for medical appointments related to kidney malfunction/failure. On July 25, 2022, Cranmer was terminated for “failure to adhere to expectations laid out in [the May 2022] mediation.”
Cordell & Cordell maintains that Cranmer was terminated for performance reasons, citing issues with a new time clock system, failure to follow company policy regarding client documents, and other performance concerns. Cranmer argues that her termination was due to her reporting of sexual harassment, the March 1 letter alleging retaliation, and her kidney condition.
Legal Analysis
Title VII Retaliation Claim: The court found that Cranmer established a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII. The court noted that the two-month gap between Cranmer’s protected activity (reporting Randle) and Gray’s stated desire to begin the termination process was sufficient to withstand summary judgment on the causation element. The court also determined that a reasonable factfinder could find Cordell & Cordell’s performance-based explanation for termination to be pretextual.
ADA Discrimination Claim: The court held that Cranmer met her burden to show a prima facie case of ADA discrimination. The court found that Cranmer’s kidney condition qualified as a disability under the ADA, that she was qualified for her position, and that there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could find she was terminated because of her kidney condition. The court also determined that a jury could infer that the performance concerns were pretextual.
ADA Retaliation Claim: The court ruled that Cranmer failed to establish a prima facie case for ADA retaliation. The court found that Cranmer’s request for paid time off to attend medical appointments did not constitute a request for a “special accommodation” under the ADA and thus was not protected activity.
The court granted in part and denied in part Cordell & Cordell’s motion for summary judgment, allowing the Title VII retaliation and ADA discrimination claims to proceed while dismissing the ADA retaliation claim.
Schrag on Law 