ST. PAUL, Minn. (Legal Newsline) - A school district employee who resigned after receiving her first poor job reviews in nearly 20 years can sue the district for age discrimination after presenting evidence her boss was targeting older, white workers for dismissal, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled.
The state high court said Barbara Henry can sue St. Paul Independent School District #625 even though she quit before availing herself of any of the administrative procedures for addressing workplace discrimination and her claim of a hostile work environment failed for lack of evidence.
Henry worked as a network technician from 1997 to 2017 and received excellent performance reviews through most of her career. In 2014, the district hired Idrissa Davis to serve as deputy chief of technology services. Davis brought in Sonya Zuker and Vicky Shine as subordinate executives. Zuker supervised Shine, who in turn was Henry’s supervisor.
In the fall of 2016, Zuker and Shine conducted the first performance reviews of the team since Davis was hired and Henry received a below-standards rating for the first time in her career. In November 2016, Zuker recommended placing Henry on a performance improvement plan, or PIP, for “managing a fraction of the required work” for her position, using a personal vehicle instead of required school vans, resisting work on non-wireless projects and other complaints.
In April 2017 she again received a below-standards review, citing similar complaints, and in May 2017 Davis wrote Henry a letter saying he was considering firing her. The letter said Henry could present a statement in her defense with a union representative present. Instead, Henry retired at age 57.
After she resigned, Henry filed an age discrimination complaint with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights that ultimately was dismissed. She also sued in district court, claiming the school district created a hostile work environment that effectively forced her to quit.
During discovery, Zuker testified that her boss Davis used PIPs to force out older employees, by creating requirements they couldn’t fulfill. Zuker said she didn’t recall Davis mentioning Henry’s age, but excluded her from a training program, allegedly saying “just take away formal training and not spend the money” on her.
Another unnamed coworker testified that Davis said “problems within the department are because people are too old and that they’re overpaid white people.” Henry testified that Davis looked at her in a meeting and said “long-term employees should consider retirement and travel like his parents.”
The trial court dismissed Henry’s case, finding that she voluntarily resigned without taking advantage of the district’s anti-discrimination policies. But an appeals court reversed, finding Henry had presented enough evidence to pursue a “constructive discharge” case, although there wasn’t enough evidence to prove a hostile work environment was to blame.
The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed, in a Feb. 8 decision. The court noted that it had ruled in the 2008 decision Frieler v. Carlson Marketing Group, that employers can defeat discrimination claims by proving the plaintiff never took advantage of administrative programs to address the complaint. But it refused to apply that standard in Henry’s case claiming she was forced to quit.
“When an employer is intentionally trying to get rid of an employee, it makes little sense to also require that employee to give the employer a chance to work out the problem,” the majority ruled. “In such circumstances, requiring an employee to notify the employer and try to resolve the situation before quitting will often be an exercise in futility.”
The district argued Henry couldn’t prove constructive discharge because that claim is only available in cases of a hostile work environment and that part of her case was dismissed. But the Supreme Court rejected that argument, saying an employee can also be driven to quit because of disparate treatment. The court cited federal labor law decisions where workplace conditions become unbearable due to discrimination, or workers quit “just ahead of the fall of the axe.”
“A jury could find that a reasonable person faced with an unachievable PIP based on performance reviews consisting of trivial and exaggerated allegations would feel compelled to resign, particularly after receiving a letter explaining that termination was being considered,” the court said. “The handwriting was on the wall for Henry, and taken as true, Zuker’s testimony suggests that Henry was going to be fired no matter what.”
Justice G. Barry Anderson dissented, joined by Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea, saying Henry blamed a hostile work environment caused her constructive discharge, or decision to quit. But the majority split those two claims, allowing her to continue the constructive-discharge suit while dismissing the hostile work environment claim.
“Because Henry has alleged a constructive discharge based on a hostile work environment, but no hostile work environment existed, summary judgment for the School District was appropriate,” Anderson wrote.