Marci Walkingstick Dixon sued Northeastern State University (NSU) and several individual defendants in the Eastern District of Oklahoma raising claims of Title VII sex and race discrimination, Title VII retaliation, and FMLA retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims, and Walkingstick Dixon appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
Factual Overview
Walkingstick Dixon, a Native American woman and member of the Cherokee Nation, worked in NSU’s Information Technology Services Department starting in 2013. In 2015, Dr. Richard Reif became her supervisor. She alleged that Dr. Reif made various discriminatory comments, including asking about her last name’s origin, commenting negatively about a Cherokee tribal chief, and making gender-stereotypical comments about women. In March 2018, Walkingstick Dixon had a dispute with Dr. Reif about using compensatory time for sick days. After receiving a reprimand about this issue, she filed a discrimination complaint in May 2018. While her complaint was pending, NSU’s HR department began characterizing her time reports as “falsified” and discussing whether she could be denied reinstatement after FMLA leave. NSU terminated her employment on August 16, 2018.
Legal Analysis
Title VII Discrimination Claims: The court reversed summary judgment on both the sex and race discrimination claims. The court held that Walkingstick Dixon established a prima facie case by showing she was a member of protected classes, was qualified for her job, was fired, and was replaced. The court found that her evidence of pretext, including HR notes showing NSU was searching for reasons to terminate her before fully investigating her discrimination complaint, created genuine issues of material fact.
Title VII Retaliation: The court reversed summary judgment on the retaliation claim. The court found that Walkingstick Dixon’s July 27, 2018 interview about discrimination was protected activity and that her termination three weeks later was sufficient temporal proximity to establish causation. The same evidence of pretext supporting her discrimination claims also supported her retaliation claim.
FMLA Retaliation: The court affirmed summary judgment on the FMLA claim against Dr. Reif individually. The court held that the economic reality test applies to determine individual liability under the FMLA, joining other circuits on this issue. Because Walkingstick Dixon only challenged the application of this test rather than its outcome, the court affirmed summary judgment on this claim.
The Tenth Circuit reversed summary judgment on Walkingstick Dixon’s Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims but affirmed summary judgment on her FMLA retaliation claim.
Schrag on Law 