Plaintiff Lisa Casey sued defendant Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas raising claims of hostile work environment, retaliation, and race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment and retaliation claims, as well as race discrimination claims occurring outside the statute of limitations, under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Lisa Casey, an African American female, began working for the Kansas City Board of Public Utilities (BPU) in 1994 as a Plant Relief Operator. Since January 2012, she has worked as a Service Dispatcher. Throughout her career, Casey applied for and was denied multiple positions within the BPU. She claims to have experienced differential treatment compared to Caucasian employees, including less overtime and disciplinary actions for minor incidents while Caucasian employees were not disciplined for more serious incidents.
In February 2017, Casey complained to union representative Eric Williams about differential treatment between herself and another dispatcher. She alleges that after this complaint, she was harassed by Stephen Green, who changed where she could park her car and wrote her up for using offensive language on a phone call. Casey also claims she made numerous internal and external complaints and was subsequently retaliated against for making these complaints.
On January 5, 2024, Casey filed her first Complaint, which she later amended on March 19, 2024, after the Court granted defendant’s motion for a more definite statement.
Legal Analysis
Hostile Work Environment Claim: The court found that Casey failed to plausibly allege that the alleged harassment she experienced was based on race and sufficiently severe or pervasive. The court noted that Casey’s allegations of denied promotions and differential treatment were based on facially neutral conduct and lacked context of overt, racially discriminatory conduct.
Retaliation Claim: The court determined that Casey’s general statement of “multiple complaints” was insufficient to plausibly allege a protected activity. While the court assumed Casey’s complaint to union representative Williams could serve as a protected activity, it found that the nearly four-year gap between this complaint and the alleged adverse action (denial of overtime in January 2021) was too long to support a reasonable inference of retaliation without additional evidence.
Race Discrimination Claim: The court held that Casey’s race discrimination claims occurring before January 5, 2020, were time-barred by the four-year statute of limitations. The court rejected Casey’s argument that the continuing violation doctrine should apply to her failure-to-promote claims, noting that such claims are discrete acts that cannot be saved by this doctrine.
The court granted defendant’s partial motion to dismiss, dismissing Casey’s hostile work environment and retaliation claims entirely, and dismissing race discrimination claims occurring before January 5, 2020.
Schrag on Law 