Adamson v. Multi Community Diversified Services, Inc.
90 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,109, 514 F.3d 1136, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 2418 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit discrimination based on 'familial status' because it is a gender-neutral classification. An adverse employment action taken against employees because of their relationship as a family unit does not, by itself, constitute sex-based discrimination.
Facts:
- Barry Adamson was the Chief Executive Officer of Multi Community Diversified Services (MCDS), a nonprofit corporation where he had worked for nine years.
- As CEO, Barry Adamson incorporated a new entity, Cartridge King of Kansas (CKK), and hired his wife, Patricia Adamson, as its business manager and his daughter, Jessica Curl, as a sales representative.
- MCDS had a discretionary anti-nepotism policy that generally restricted employees from directly supervising close family members.
- The MCDS board of directors became concerned about Barry Adamson's unilateral actions, including money transfers to CKK and his direct supervision of his wife and daughter.
- In October 2002, the MCDS board terminated the employment of Barry Adamson (age 56), Patricia Adamson, and Jessica Curl on the same day.
- Following his termination, MCDS replaced Barry Adamson with Sherry Plenert, a 63-year-old female employee.
- At the time of the Adamsons' terminations, another father-son pair of employees, where the father supervised the son, were not terminated under the anti-nepotism policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Barry Adamson, Patricia Adamson, and Jessica Curl (Plaintiffs) filed suit against Multi Community Diversified Services and Cartridge King of Kansas (Defendants) in the U.S. District Court.
- The complaint alleged sex discrimination under Title VII, age discrimination under the ADEA (Barry Adamson), and various state law claims.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on the federal claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish their prima facie cases or provide sufficient evidence of pretext.
- The district court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.
- Plaintiffs (Appellants) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does terminating employees based on their 'familial status' as a husband, wife, and daughter constitute sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Opinions:
Majority - Kane, Senior District Judge
No, terminating employees based on their 'familial status' as a husband, wife, and daughter does not constitute sex discrimination under Title VII. The court reasoned that 'familial status' is not a protected classification because it is inherently gender-neutral. While terms like 'husband,' 'wife,' and 'daughter' are gender-specific, the underlying classification is relational, not based on sex. Therefore, claims of discrimination based solely on familial status fall outside the scope of Title VII. The court also rejected the individual gender and age claims, finding Barry Adamson failed to establish a prima facie case for age discrimination because his replacement was older, and he failed to meet the heightened standard for a reverse discrimination claim because he could not show background circumstances suggesting the employer discriminates against men. Similarly, Patricia and Jessica's claims failed because the inconsistent application of the anti-nepotism policy was insufficient to create an inference of gender-based discriminatory animus.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that Title VII's protections against sex discrimination do not extend to 'familial status.' It clarifies for future litigants that claims based on being part of a family unit, without more evidence of gender-based animus, are not cognizable under Title VII. The ruling also reinforces the significant evidentiary burden on plaintiffs in reverse discrimination cases, requiring them to demonstrate unusual circumstances pointing to discrimination against a majority group. The case serves as an important reminder that not all seemingly unfair or inconsistent employment actions amount to unlawful discrimination, drawing a clear line between arbitrary employer decisions and those motivated by invidious, legally prohibited factors.
