Plaintiff Joey L. Peck sued defendants Schlage Lock Company, LLC, Allegion PLC, Allegion S&S Lock Holding, Inc., Allegion US Holding Company, Inc., and Allegion US Holding III, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas raising claims of sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Before the court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Peck, who is female, was hired by Ingersoll Rand Company on August 12, 2002. In 2014, Allegion, the parent company of Schlage, acquired Ingersoll Rand. On October 2, 2020, Allegion promoted Peck to Director, Channel Marketing & Analysis, contingent upon her accepting Allegion’s non-competition agreement. During her employment, Schlage never demoted, disciplined, or gave Peck a negative performance review.
In 2022, Scott McNamara, who is male, was Peck’s manager. In 2021, Peck became involved in a workplace dispute between two female subordinates. She sought McNamara’s assistance in resolving the conflict for nearly eight months without success. On July 13, 2022, during a meeting with Peck about the ongoing conflict, McNamara described one of the subordinates as a “self-proclaimed bitch,” characterized the conflict as a “molehill,” and stated that the last time two female leaders could not get along, they were both “clipped,” which he later clarified to mean terminated.
On August 4, 2022, Peck told McNamara that his comments scared and threatened her, and that his behavior was impacting her well-being. That same day, Peck submitted a complaint to HR about the conflict between the subordinates. Following their meeting, McNamara began treating Peck differently by excluding her from communications with her direct reports, becoming briefer in conversations, and dismissing her concerns. HR investigated but could not substantiate her complaint.
On September 25, 2022, Peck submitted a gender discrimination complaint against McNamara through Allegion’s ethics helpline, citing his gender-based comments and dismissive treatment. During the investigation, McNamara admitted making the statements and characterized the situation as “comical” and “all just fake drama.” He also threatened to resign but was not disciplined or terminated.
On October 14, 2022, HR informed Peck it could not substantiate her complaint against McNamara. On October 25, 2022, Peck told Dave Perozzi (McNamara’s supervisor) that she desired to work in an environment free of harassment, retaliation, and discrimination and was prepared to take legal action. She asked whether he would consider giving her a severance agreement but reiterated to Lynley Estes (HR director) that she was not resigning.
After exhausting all internal channels, Peck filed a discrimination charge with the Kansas Human Rights Commission against Schlage. On November 15, 2022, defendants terminated Peck’s employment, claiming they were accepting her resignation. They locked her out of company systems immediately, even though she did not accept the severance agreement.
After her termination, Peck sought new employment but was restricted by her non-competition agreement. On March 13, 2023, she accepted a position at North Star Navigation as a Private Wealth Lead advisor making $140,000 per year, substantially less than her previous annual compensation of $417,804.53.
Legal Analysis
Sex Discrimination:
Defendants argued that Peck could not establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination because (1) she voluntarily resigned, so she did not suffer adverse employment action, and (2) she could not show that defendants treated her differently than similarly situated male employees.
The court noted that under Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Mo., plaintiffs in Title VII discrimination cases need only show “some harm” to an identifiable term or condition of employment, not “significant” harm. Peck presented evidence that she explicitly told Estes she was not resigning, yet defendants terminated her employment anyway, creating a genuine issue of material fact on this element.
Regarding differential treatment, Peck showed that when McNamara threatened to leave the company during his interview about her complaint, defendants did not take his comments as a resignation or terminate him. In contrast, when Peck asked about a severance agreement while explicitly stating she was not resigning, defendants terminated her employment. The court found this evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.
The court also found that Peck established a genuine issue of material fact on pretext based on evidence that (1) she confirmed with Estes she was not resigning, (2) McNamara made sex-based comments, (3) defendants assigned part of her work to a male employee, and (4) defendants treated McNamara differently.
Retaliation:
Defendants argued that Peck could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation because (1) she did not engage in protected activity, (2) she voluntarily resigned, and (3) there was no causal connection between her complaints and termination.
The court found that Peck’s September 25, 2022 gender discrimination complaint against McNamara constituted protected activity. She also engaged in protected activity when she notified various managers and HR personnel that she was seeking legal remedies.
Regarding adverse employment action, the court noted that despite Muldrow’s reduced standard for discrimination claims, retaliation claims still require showing the employer took action serious enough to dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination charge. The court found that Peck’s evidence of being terminated despite explicitly stating she was not resigning created a genuine issue of material fact on this element.
On the causation element, the court found that the less than three-week period between Peck’s last protected activity (October 28, 2022) and her termination (November 15, 2022) established sufficient temporal proximity to infer causation.
The court also found genuine issues of material fact on the question of pretext for the retaliation claim.
Lost Wages After March 2023:
Defendants argued that Peck failed to mitigate her damages because she ceased looking for employment after accepting a position in March 2023. The court rejected this argument, finding that Peck presented evidence that (1) her job search was initially restricted by her non-competition agreement, (2) she diligently sought work in areas of her prior experience, (3) she accepted a position making $140,000 (substantially less than her prior salary), and (4) she completed additional education to accelerate her compensation. Defendants failed to identify suitable positions for which Peck was qualified or show that she refused substantially equivalent employment.
Non-Employer Defendants:
Defendants sought dismissal of the non-Schlage defendants, arguing that Peck failed to exhaust administrative remedies against them and that Schlage was her only employer. The court found evidence that Schlage and Allegion were joint employers because Allegion directed Peck’s work, set her employment conditions, supervised her daily activities, controlled her records, and terminated her employment.
The court overruled defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all grounds.
Schrag on Law 