Susan P. Asmo v. Keane, Inc.
471 F.3d 588, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 31057, 88 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 42,630 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a reduction-in-force pregnancy discrimination case, a plaintiff can survive summary judgment by establishing a prima facie case through close temporal proximity between the employer's awareness of the pregnancy and the termination, and by presenting sufficient circumstantial evidence that the employer's proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the termination were pretextual.
Facts:
- Susan Asmo began working for Keane, Inc. as a recruiter on February 5, 2001.
- In mid-2001, Keane acquired another company and planned to eliminate duplicate positions.
- On September 11, 2001, Asmo learned she was pregnant with twins.
- Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Keane's business experienced a significant downturn.
- In October 2001, Asmo announced her pregnancy to her team and her supervisor, Scott Santoro, during a conference call. Her colleagues offered congratulations, but Santoro remained silent and quickly changed the subject.
- In November 2001, Santoro was directed by upper management to reduce the number of recruiters on his staff as part of a larger layoff.
- Santoro decided to terminate Asmo, claiming he based the decision on her short tenure, low number of hires, and the forecasted low hiring needs in her region.
- On December 4, 2001, Santoro informed Asmo that her employment was being terminated.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan Asmo filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court against Keane, Inc., alleging unlawful termination due to pregnancy discrimination under Title VII and Ohio state law.
- Keane, Inc. filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
- The district court granted Keane's Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing Asmo's claims in their entirety.
- Asmo (appellant) filed a timely appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit against Keane, Inc. (appellee).
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 terminated during a reduction in force present a genuine issue of material fact for trial on a pregnancy discrimination claim by showing temporal proximity between the pregnancy announcement and termination, combined with evidence that the employer's proffered reasons for the termination were inconsistent, false, or otherwise suspect?
Opinions:
Majority - Cudahy
Yes. An employee presents a genuine issue of material fact for trial by demonstrating close temporal proximity between her pregnancy announcement and termination, coupled with circumstantial evidence suggesting the employer's reasons were pretextual, such as a supervisor's unusual silence, changing justifications for the termination, and questionable application of the stated layoff criteria. Asmo established a prima facie case because the two-month proximity between her pregnancy announcement and termination was sufficient to create a nexus between the two events. Furthermore, Asmo presented sufficient evidence of pretext to survive summary judgment, including: 1) Santoro's suspicious silence after she announced her pregnancy with twins; 2) Keane's changing rationale for her termination, where Santoro initially gave demonstrably false reasons (salary and expenses) that were later dropped in litigation; 3) evidence that Santoro did not conduct a thorough or fair comparison of regional hiring needs; and 4) Keane's failure to follow its own policy of considering performance history, especially when another retained recruiter had negative performance reviews. Taken together, this evidence would allow a reasonable juror to conclude that Keane's stated reasons were a pretext for pregnancy discrimination.
Dissenting - Griffin
No. An employee fails to establish a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination in a reduction-in-force context when relying solely on temporal proximity of approximately two months, as this is insufficient under circuit precedent to establish the necessary causal nexus without other corroborating evidence of discrimination. Sixth Circuit precedent requires more than temporal proximity alone to establish causation; it must be coupled with other indicia of retaliatory conduct. The time lapse of 35 to 64 days in this case is a 'loose temporal proximity' and is not 'acutely near in time' enough to create an inference of discrimination by itself. Because Asmo failed to present sufficient evidence for the fourth element of her prima facie case, the inquiry should end, and the court should not proceed to analyze whether Keane's proffered reasons were pretextual.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the summary judgment standard for pregnancy discrimination claims in the Sixth Circuit, particularly in a reduction-in-force context. It establishes that a collection of circumstantial evidence, none of which may be dispositive on its own, can be aggregated to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext. The case lowers the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs at the summary judgment stage, signaling that courts will closely scrutinize an employer's decision-making process when a layoff follows closely after a pregnancy announcement. This holding empowers plaintiffs to proceed to trial based on evidence like a manager's suspicious behavior or an employer's inconsistent justifications, even without direct evidence of discriminatory intent.
Unlock the full brief for Susan P. Asmo v. Keane, Inc.