https://today.westlaw.com/Document/I5b721288574011ee8921fbef1a541940/View/FullText.html?contextData=(sc.Default)&transitionType=Default&firstPage=true&OWSessionId=7d7f0f54caca401bac2cb4a91d848b3e&skipAnonymous=true&bhcp=1
DISCRIMINATION—N.D. ILL.: KOREAN FEMALE BRANCH MANAGER ADVANCES SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AND HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS AGAINST JOINT EMPLOYERS
2023 WL 6118774 (C.C.H.)
•••Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up
•News: Story
The employee was not required at the pleading stage to itemize every instance of harassment.
A Korean female branch manager can proceed with her sex and national origin discrimination and hostile work environment claims against two companies as joint employers, a federal district court in Illinois ruled. The related companies did business out of the same location, and both management teams supervised her. Also, she sufficiently alleged she was subject to different terms and conditions than non-Korean males and females, and her allegations of a hostile work environment were plausible where she sought medical treatment after a manager berated her for reporting a ventilation issue with the building. The court, however, granted the motion to dismiss her retaliation claim because she failed to allege the actions that one company took after her protected activity involved the second company ( Kim v. FNS, Inc., September 15, 2023, Valderrama, F.).
The employee, a Korean female, worked for FNS as a branch manager at a location in Bolingbrook, Illinois that packaged LG Electronics Inc. mobile phones before distribution to the market. She alleged that FNS and LG are “sister companies” that are both part of the inter-related family-owned business under the LG brand. She asserted they were located at the same address in Bolingbrook and both entities managed the operation and employees at that location on a daily basis. She claimed she was supervised by and reported to various FNS and LG employees and that they both exercised significant control over her such that they qualified as joint employers.
Treated differently. The employee alleged she was denied the same terms and conditions of employment available to similarly situated Korean men. She alleged she was not paid the same salary or provided the same bonuses and other financial benefits as Korean men who were also branch managers.
She also alleged she was “subjected to a hostile work environment with berating, shouting, harassing, and undermining her job authority by male Korean management, to which no employee that was not a Korean woman was subjected.” She described a situation where she reported a building ventilation issue to an LG manager and included an HR representative on the report. The manager allegedly berated her for raising the issue and for including HR. As a result of her alleged treatment and environment, she sought out psychological treatment, claiming that health care specialists advised her against returning to work because “it would be dangerous to her.”
Retaliation allegations. In addition, the employee alleged she took medical leave due to the discrimination and harassment and claimed the defendants refused to pay her even though male Korean employees who went on leave were paid. She did not specify in the complaint which company refused to pay her.
Charges filed. The employee then filed discrimination charges against FNS and LG with both the EEOC and the Illinois Department of Human Rights and obtained a right-to-sue notice. She alleged that after filing the charges, FNS stopped paying her medical insurance premium even though it continued to pay the premium for other employees.
Thereafter, she filed sex and national origin discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation charges under Title VII against FNS and LG under a joint employer theory.
LG filed this motion to dismiss the compliant for failing to allege sufficient facts to establish LG as her joint employer. Alternatively, it argued her complaint failed to sufficiently allege her discrimination and retaliation claims against it.
Sufficient allegations of joint employer. The court first found the employee sufficiently set forth allegations from which it was plausible that FNS and LG could be found to be joint employers for purposes of her Title VII claims. She alleged that FNS and LG were “related companies that did business out of the same location” and that that she “was supervised by, and was required to and did report to, both FNS and LG management about various issues” and thus was “subjected to the control of, both FNS and LG management.” She also alleged the FNS location where she worked “packaged LG mobile telephones that were distributed to the market.”
In addition, the employee alleged a specific incident where she reported a ventilation issue to an LG manager and a human resources representative. The LG manager allegedly berated her about the report and threatened her to not speak about the issue again. Afterwards, she complained to both FNS and LG management. These allegations were sufficient to support that LG was a joint employer at this stage, the court said, noting that whether, in fact, LG was a joint employer “is an issue for another day.”
Discrimination claims survive. Turning to the employee's discrimination claims, the court denied LG's motion to dismiss both her sex and national origin claims, finding her allegations supported an inference of discrimination at this stage.
The employee's sex discrimination claim was based upon allegations that her terms and conditions of employment, including that she was subject to different compensation, including salary, bonuses, and benefits, was due to her sex. She alleged “she did not receive the same salary as Korean men in those same positions” and that Korean male branch managers “received bonuses and other financial benefits” that she did not receive during her employment as a branch manager.
Likewise, she included sufficient allegations to state a claim for national origin discrimination. The crux of this claim was that, as a Korean female, she was paid less and treated differently by Korean male employees than she believed non-Korean male and female employees were treated. She alleged that “[b]ecause she is a Korean woman, the male Korean management expected that Plaintiff would be subservient and docile, never questioning their management or behavior.”
Based on the minimal pleading requirements for employment discrimination claims, as set forth by the Seventh Circuit, her pleading sufficiently placed LG on notice of the claims against it.
Hostile work environment claim proceeds. Next, the court addressed the employee's hostile work environment claim, denying LG's motion to dismiss. Although LG argued she only specified one event to support her claim, the court agreed with the employee that she was not required at the pleading stage to itemize every instance of harassment and that she was only required to provide LG fair notice of what the claim was and the grounds upon which it rested.
She did so, the court said, by alleging she was subjected to berating and shouting by male Korean management, to which non-Korean women and men were not subjected. and she gave an example of that treatment. She explained the alleged effect, seeking out medical treatment, being advised that returning to the environment “would be dangerous to her,” and alleged the treatment was “degrading, humiliating, and demoralizing.” Thus, her allegations cleared the plausibility threshold as they provided LG notice of her claim (hostile work environment based on sex and national origin), the whom (her direct supervisors and other managers) and when (during her employment).
Retaliation claim fails. Lastly, the court found the employee failed to state a retaliation claim against LG. Her filing of administrative charges alleging employment discrimination was protected activity, however, the actions she alleged took place after that activity involved FNS and not LG. She alleged FNS stopped paying the premium for her medical insurance even though the premiums for all other employees were still being paid. She did not allege that LG knew that FNS was not paying the premiums and failed to take reasonable corrective action within its control. As such, the court agreed the complaint did not contain allegations to implicate LG in the alleged retaliation, and, thus, granted LG's motion to dismiss the claim.
The case is No. 22-cv-00230.
Attorneys: John Yo-Hwan Lee (Lee & Breen) for Jillian Soyoun Kim. Christi Lynn Coleman (Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith) for FNS, Inc. John Anthony Ybarra (Littler Mendelson) for LG Electronics USA, Inc.
Companies: FNS, Inc.; LG Electronics USA, Inc.
Cases: CoverageLiability Discrimination SexDiscrimination SexualHarassment NationalOrigin Retaliation IllinoisNews
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기