Hollingsworth v. Time Warner Cable
157 Ohio App. 3d 539, 812 N.E.2d 976, 2004 Ohio 3130 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Summary judgment for an employer in a discrimination case is improper when the employee, after establishing a prima facie case, presents sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the employer's proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination was pretextual.
Facts:
- Patti Hollingsworth began working for Time Warner in 1989 and was promoted to audit coordinator in 1996.
- In October 2000, Hollingsworth was granted intermittent FMLA leave for a medical condition. In September 2001, after she took leave, her supervisor contacted her physician's office, prompting Hollingsworth to file a complaint with the Department of Labor.
- In late November or early December 2001, Hollingsworth informed Time Warner that she was pregnant.
- On January 8, 2002, Hollingsworth received a yearly performance evaluation with a near-perfect score of 4.8 out of 5, noting her 'thoroughness and attention to detail.'
- Beginning on January 10, 2002, Hollingsworth’s attorney sent a series of letters to Time Warner expressing concerns about her treatment following her FMLA absences and DOL complaint.
- On January 16, 2002, Time Warner discovered that another employee, Tisia Hill, had stolen over $18,000 by entering false bankruptcy adjustments on customer accounts.
- On February 19, 2002, a manager recommended Hollingsworth's termination, blaming her for failing to detect the theft through her audits.
- On March 4, 2002, Time Warner terminated Hollingsworth, citing her failure to follow appropriate audit procedures.
Procedural Posture:
- Patti Hollingsworth sued Time Warner Cable in an Ohio trial court, alleging wrongful discharge, pregnancy discrimination, FMLA discrimination, and retaliation.
- Time Warner filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- The trial court granted Time Warner's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Hollingsworth's case.
- Hollingsworth, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, First Appellate District.
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 a trial court err in granting summary judgment to an employer on an employee's pregnancy and FMLA discrimination claims when the employee provides evidence that the employer's stated reason for her termination was pretextual, such as by showing disparate treatment of similarly situated, non-protected employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Winkler, J.
Yes. A trial court errs by granting summary judgment when an employee provides sufficient evidence that the employer's reason for termination was a pretext for discrimination. Hollingsworth established her prima facie cases for pregnancy and FMLA discrimination. Time Warner then articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her discharge: her failure to detect another employee's theft. However, Hollingsworth successfully raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether this reason was pretextual. She presented evidence that non-pregnant employees who performed her duties during her absences made similar mistakes but were not disciplined; that her supervisors, who also failed in their oversight duties, were not disciplined and one was even promoted; that she had followed proper procedures for reporting system errors; and that the company never reviewed her error logs during its investigation. This evidence of disparate treatment and questionable investigation practices creates a question of fact for a jury regarding the true motivation for her discharge.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the critical role of pretext evidence in surviving summary judgment in employment discrimination litigation. It reinforces that a plaintiff can defeat summary judgment not by proving discrimination outright, but by presenting sufficient circumstantial evidence to cast doubt on the employer's proffered reason for the adverse action. The decision emphasizes that evidence of disparate treatment—where similarly situated employees outside the protected class are treated more favorably—is a powerful tool for demonstrating pretext. For future cases, this opinion serves as a guide on the types and quantum of evidence (e.g., prior positive reviews, failure to follow internal procedures, differential punishment) needed to create a triable issue of fact for a jury.
