Laura A. Makowski v. Smithamundsen
662 F.3d 818, 18 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 601, 86 Fed. R. Serv. 1467 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statement made by an employee concerning an employment action is admissible as an admission by a party-opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D) if the employee's duties include responsibility related to the decision-making process affecting the action, even if they were not the final decision-maker, and such statements can serve as direct evidence to defeat summary judgment on claims of pregnancy discrimination and Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) violations.
Facts:
- Laura Makowski was employed as Marketing Director for SmithAmundsen, a law firm, from January 2005.
- In Summer 2007, Makowski informed SmithAmundsen management of her pregnancy and subsequently began FMLA leave on November 26, 2007, giving birth on December 2, 2007.
- In January 2008, while Makowski was on FMLA leave, SmithAmundsen's Executive Committee decided to eliminate Makowski's position as part of an organizational restructuring, with Glen Amundsen stating a preference for Sarah Goddard as marketing leader.
- Following the committee's decision, COO Michael DeLargy emailed HR Director Molly O'Gara, stating Makowski "doesn't fit into our culture" and tasked O'Gara with consulting outside labor and employment counsel regarding Makowski's termination.
- On February 4, 2008, while Makowski was still on maternity leave, Amundsen and DeLargy terminated her employment via telephone, explaining her position was eliminated as part of an organizational restructuring.
- Later that day, HR Director Molly O'Gara told Makowski that she "was let go because of the fact that [Makowski] was pregnant and . . . took medical leave" and that outside counsel suggested labeling the termination as part of a reduction in force due to Makowski's protected status.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 2, 2008, Laura Makowski filed a lawsuit against SmithAmundsen LLC, Glen E. Amundsen, and Michael DeLargy in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), FMLA interference, and FMLA retaliation.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment on all of Makowski’s claims.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding Makowski’s termination, ruling that Human Resources Director Molly O’Gara’s statements concerning Makowski’s termination were inadmissible hearsay because O’Gara’s job responsibilities were not related to the decision to terminate Makowski, and O’Gara was not involved in the decision-making process.
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 an employee's statement concerning the reasons for a plaintiff's termination, made by an HR Director whose duties involve ensuring compliance with anti-discrimination laws and consulting on terminations, qualify as an admission by a party-opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D) to create a triable issue of fact for claims of pregnancy discrimination, FMLA retaliation, and FMLA interference?
Opinions:
Majority - Young, District Judge
Yes, an HR Director's statement concerning the reasons for a plaintiff's termination, made by an individual whose duties encompass responsibility related to the decision-making process affecting the employment action, qualifies as an admission by a party-opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D) and creates a triable issue of fact for claims of pregnancy discrimination, FMLA retaliation, and FMLA interference. The district court abused its discretion by excluding O'Gara's statements as inadmissible hearsay. Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D), a statement is not hearsay if it's offered against a party and made by the party's agent concerning a matter within the scope of employment during the existence of the relationship. For an employee's statement to constitute an admission, their duties must encompass some responsibility related to 'the decisionmaking process affecting the employment action,' even if they were not personally involved in the final employment action itself; involvement in the process leading up to the action is sufficient. O'Gara, as Human Resources Director, had duties that included regular consultations regarding decisions to eliminate positions and terminate employees to ensure compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws, making her 'a part of the firing process.' Furthermore, DeLargy delegated to O'Gara the task of consulting with outside counsel regarding Makowski's termination, a consultation that occurred before the actual termination. This involvement in the process of ensuring legal compliance with the termination, rather than the mere ratification of a final decision, means her statements fall within the scope of her employment. O'Gara's statements, now admitted, provide direct evidence that pregnancy and FMLA leave were motivating factors in Makowski's discharge, thereby creating a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment on the Title VII/PDA pregnancy discrimination claim. Similarly, these statements establish the necessary causal connection between Makowski's protected activity and her termination for the FMLA retaliation claim, and provide a plausible explanation for the denial of FMLA reinstatement benefits for the FMLA interference claim, making summary judgment inappropriate for these claims as well. The court also noted the district court's unexplained failure to consider Makowski's additional circumstantial evidence, although O'Gara's statements alone were sufficient for reversal.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D) for statements made by human resources professionals in employment discrimination cases. It establishes that an HR employee's involvement in the 'decision-making process affecting the employment action,' even if advisory and not the ultimate determination, is sufficient for their statements to be admitted as non-hearsay admissions against the employer. This ruling makes it easier for plaintiffs to introduce internal company communications and HR advice as direct evidence of discriminatory intent, potentially increasing the likelihood that discrimination and FMLA claims will survive summary judgment and proceed to trial. Employers must therefore be acutely aware that statements made by HR personnel regarding termination rationales can be legally binding and critically impactful in litigation.
