PORTLAND, Maine (Legal Newsline) - A ruling from the Maine Supreme Court sets the stage for a white woman to tell a jury she was fired because her husband, whose criminal problems caused her to miss three days of work, is Black.
Justice Andrew Horton and colleagues on Aug. 20 reversed a summary judgment decision in favor of Foot and Ankle Associates of Maine, which told plaintiff Rebecca Adeyanju when she was hired she could not miss more than three days in a row without a doctor's note.
But there's a possibility this policy was applied inconsistently to white workers and their white spouses, the court found.
"The parties do not dispute that Foot and Ankle had a policy against missing more than three days of work without a doctor's note and that its practice manager stated that it was terminating Adeyanju's employment for missing three days of work," Horton wrote.
"The issue is whether Foot and Ankle's policy even applies here, given that Aeyanju missed three days of work, not more than three days."
Text messages from staff at Foot and Ankle appeased Adeyanju's concerns that her job might be in jeopardy for her absences. But she was surprised upon her return when she was terminated.
Adeyanju, who is white, began dating a Black man from Nigeria while employed at Foot and Ankle as a medical assistant and radiology technician. She started work there in 2012, and faced no job-performance criticisms.
She received approval for five days off to visit Nigeria. Later, she had to get a ride to work from a coworker because her boyfriend was using their shared car.
Foot and Ankle's practice manager said she did not want to know about Adeyanju's personal life and expressed concern about having only one car, but it is alleged a white woman with a white husband who was late for work because of transportation issues was accommodated.
In 2019, after Adeyanju's marriage, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement began searching for her husband in connection with criminal charges. Dr. Michael Saraydarian and the practice manager were told ICE might come to the office.
On Aug. 22, 2019, Adeyanju texted Saraydarian she could not come to work because she was searching for a lawyer for her husband. He said: "Ok sorry for your situation."
The next day, Adeyanju again texted him that she wasn't coming to work, this time because she was scared and trying to raise money "so we can surrender with a lawyer." Saraydian said: "Thanks for letting me know."
An ICE agent did visit the office. After a weekend, on Aug. 26, 2019, Adeyanju said she couldn't come to work to prepare for her husband's interview on Wednesday. Saraydian did not respond and later that day decided, along with the practice manager, to fire her.
She was fired for job abandonment the next day and was told by the practice manager, "I don't want to know anything about your personal life," it is alleged. A coworker had told Adeyanju that her absence was not putting a strain on the practice and that her responsibilities were being covered.
She was the first employee there to be fired for missing work. It is disputed whether the practice manager was strict about attendance, as others had been given days and weeks off after heart attacks and car accidents.
Adeyanju also had 35 hours of vacation time available when she was fired. And another employee whose white husband faced criminal charges faced no negative consequences.
Adeyanju sued in 2022 but the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Foot and Ankle, finding no question the firing was not motivated by discrimination or the reasons for were pretextual.
But that ruling didn't stick after Adeyanju's appeal, which leaves Foot and Ankle with the possibility of defending itself before a jury. There are plenty of disputes for fact-finders to sort out, the Supreme Court ruled, like:
-Adeyanju contacted Foot and Ankle all three days she missed work, but Foot and Ankle told the Maine Human Rights Commission she didn't;
-The practice had never enforced the three-plus-days policy, and Adeyanju had not violated it anyway;
-Responses from Saraydian on the first two days meant Foot and Ankle consented to her absence; and
-The practice's decision to fire her shortly after being visited by an ICE agent and contacting its insurance company.
"Although they are by no means conclusive, these facts and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from them could support findings that (1) Foot and Ankle's explanation for the termination was pretextual and (2) Foot and Ankle was motivated by discriminatory animus in the decision to terminate her employment," Horton wrote.