Plaintiff Deborah C. Broil sued defendant Kansas Bureau of Investigation in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, raising claims of race discrimination, sex discrimination, retaliation, and age discrimination. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Broil, a Black, African American female, worked for the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) from April 2019 to December 2022 as a Forensic Scientist III. She alleged several troubling interactions with a coworker named Jim Schiefereke, who maintained laboratory instruments in the Chemistry Department. These incidents included Schiefereke instructing another employee to display a book about Elvis’s death to humiliate Broil, refusing to install a shorter instrument method for her, leaving a DVD with sexual scenes on her desk, yelling at her about instrument use, and making racist comments including that “the Chinese Wuhan Lab was making a Negro Virus.”
Broil alleged she was denied continuing training opportunities that were provided to younger, white colleagues. In August 2022, KBI placed her on a retraining program designed for new scientists with no experience, despite her having completed her original training and having over 13 years of experience. This retraining requirement allegedly violated KBI policy, which stated that scientists with prior experience should have a personalized training program. KBI claimed they required the retraining because they had no record of her original training, but refused to review Broil’s own records showing she had completed it.
Broil filed an EEOC charge on May 5, 2022, and an amended charge on May 31, 2022. In December 2022, KBI fired her, allegedly for not completing the retraining program in a timely manner. Broil filed a second EEOC charge on February 9, 2023, before bringing this lawsuit.
Legal Analysis
Statute of Limitations:
KBI argued that events occurring more than 300 days before Broil’s first EEOC charge (filed May 5, 2022) could not be considered. The court disagreed, finding that because Broil alleged hostile work environment claims (which are continuing violations), all the events could be considered to determine liability as long as at least one contributing act occurred within the filing period.
Title VII Race Discrimination – Disparate Treatment:
The court found that Broil plausibly alleged a Title VII race discrimination claim under a disparate treatment theory. Broil identified similarly situated employees who were treated differently, specifically naming two younger, white colleagues who received training she was denied. The court also found that KBI’s violation of its internal training policy for experienced scientists raised an inference of discriminatory motive.
Title VII Race Discrimination – Hostile Work Environment:
The court dismissed Broil’s hostile work environment claim on two grounds. First, Schiefereke was not Broil’s supervisor, so KBI would only be liable for his harassing conduct if KBI knew about it and failed to respond adequately. Second, even considering the incidents that occurred after Broil reported Schiefereke’s conduct, the alleged harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to be actionable under Title VII.
Title VII Sex Discrimination:
For the same reasons as the race discrimination claim, the court found Broil’s sex discrimination claim based on disparate treatment was plausible. The departure from internal policy regarding training and the fact that Broil was the first experienced scientist ever placed on retraining suggested possible discrimination. However, the court dismissed Broil’s sex-based hostile work environment claim for the same reasons it dismissed her race-based hostile work environment claim.
Title VII Retaliation:
The court found that Broil plausibly alleged retaliation based on her termination, which was a materially adverse employment action. Although nearly three months passed between her EEOC complaint and her placement on the retraining program, KBI’s violation of its internal policy suggested a retaliatory motive. However, the court dismissed Broil’s retaliatory harassment claim because the alleged harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive.
Kansas Age Discrimination (KADEA) Claim:
The court retained jurisdiction over Broil’s state law claim because some of her federal claims survived, and defendant did not present an adequate argument for dismissing this claim.
The court granted in part and denied in part KBI’s motion to dismiss, allowing Broil’s disparate treatment and retaliation claims to proceed while dismissing her hostile work environment claims.
Schrag on Law 