Sondia Bell sued the City of Tulsa in the Northern District of Oklahoma raising claims of race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and Section 1981, as well as disability association discrimination and retaliation under the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment to the City after finding Bell failed to show the City’s legitimate reasons for its employment actions were pretext for discrimination or retaliation, and Bell appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
Factual Overview
Bell, an African American woman, worked in the City of Tulsa’s IT department. In 2019, she requested permission to work from home to care for her autistic son, but her supervisor Chris Berg denied the request. After filing grievances about the denial, Bell became involved in a dispute with a coworker over bathroom access. During HR’s investigation of the bathroom incident, Bell altered Berg’s email to make it appear she alone was banned from the bathroom, refused to provide a written statement about the incident, and attempted to leverage an audio recording to obtain the coworker’s statement. This led to her first suspension.
Bell received a second suspension after repeatedly refusing to follow Berg’s directives regarding timekeeping and staying late without authorization. Finally, Bell was terminated after making false allegations that an HR manager had improperly disclosed her son’s medical information during an FMLA discussion. Throughout this period, Bell filed various discrimination and retaliation complaints.
Legal Analysis
Scope of Claims: The court first determined which employment actions were properly before it, finding only the suspensions and termination – not denied work-from-home requests or disciplinary notices – constituted actionable adverse employment actions.
McDonnell Douglas Framework: The court analyzed Bell’s discrimination and retaliation claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, assuming Bell established prima facie cases but focusing on whether she showed the City’s legitimate reasons were pretextual.
First Suspension: The court found Bell failed to show pretext regarding her first suspension, as she did not dispute misquoting her supervisor’s email or impeding the HR investigation. Her temporal proximity argument failed because the decision came from an independent review process.
Second Suspension: The court concluded Bell did not demonstrate pretext for her second suspension, as she admitted refusing to follow directives while disputing only the underlying timekeeping rules rather than the insubordination charge itself.
Termination: The court held Bell failed to show pretext regarding her termination through either direct evidence or the “cat’s paw” theory of subordinate bias. The court emphasized that the City’s independent investigation process, including hearings before a neutral officer, broke any causal chain between alleged subordinate bias and the termination decision.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the City on all claims, finding Bell failed to raise genuine disputes of material fact that the City’s legitimate reasons for suspending and terminating her were pretextual.
Schrag on Law 