holding that allegations of an increased workload of approximately two hours per week and new requirements on taking sick leave and submission of notes were insufficient to state a constructive discharge claim
How later courts described this case
- holding that allegations of an increased workload of approximately two hours per week and new requirements on taking sick leave and submission of notes were insufficient to state a constructive discharge claim
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JESSICA SHEETS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-20-01056-PRW
)
SONIC INDUSTRIES, LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support” (Dkt. 7)
(the “Motion to Dismiss”). The sole question presented by the Motion to Dismiss is
whether Plaintiff has adequately alleged a constructive discharge. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court finds that she has and therefore DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
Background
In relevant part, the Petition (Dkt. 1, Ex. 2) alleges as follows. Plaintiff, Jessica
Sheets, was Senior Director of Organizational Development and Employee Engagement of
Defendant, Sonic Industries, LLC (“Sonic”). In June of 2019, Sheets sustained a serious
neck injury that would require corrective surgery. She promptly notified her supervisors of
her need for surgery and, in the meantime, continued to work.
In the lead up to her surgery, Christina Vaughan, one of her supervisors, made an
offhand remark to Sheets that the entire team, including Sheets, “was broken.” Jennifer
Buxton, another supervisor, echoed that sentiment at a later company convention: Buxton
asked the members of an audience to raise their hands if they had had surgery. Several
hands went up, to which Buxton commented something to the effect of, “Well, not as much
as Sheets!” Sheets protested, but Buxton pressed on: Sheets may appear well, Buxton told
the crowd, but “she’s broken.”
Soon after, Sheets took time off to have surgery and recover.
When she returned, she found that she had been stripped of a substantial number of
duties—as much as “60%” of her job—and that several subordinates had been taken out of
her chain of command. She also learned that Buxton had been spreading incorrect
information about her health while she was away.
On October 23, 2019, Sheets contacted Terri Cox in human resources to complain.
At their meeting, Sheets asked Cox about another position for which she had been under
consideration, to which Cox replied that the position had since been filled. Cox also
confirmed that Sheets was correct in believing that Sonic would soon terminate her
employment.
In early November of 2019, Sheets lodged a complaint through an attorney. Sonic
took no action in response. Sheets resigned from her position on November 22, 2019, and
began working for a new employer on December 2, 2019.
Sheets then sued Sonic under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the
Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA), and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Now, Sonic moves to dismiss all claims against it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).1
1 See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss and Br. in Supp. (Dkt. 7).
Standard of Review
In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, all well-pleaded allegations in the
complaint must be accepted as true and viewed “in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.”2 While a complaint need not recite “detailed factual allegations,” “a plaintiff’s
obligation to provide the grounds of h[er] entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.”3 The pleaded facts must establish that the claim is plausible.4
Discussion
Sheets asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Oklahoma
Anti-Discrimination Act, and the Family Medical Leave Act, each of which, as asserted, is
predicated on an adverse employment action. In this case, Sheets alleges that the adverse
employment action was a constructive discharge from employment.
A constructive discharge from employment occurs when an employee is
discriminated against by their employer to the point where a reasonable person in their
position would have felt compelled to resign and then does so.5 In essence, “a plaintiff
must show that she had no other choice but to quit. The conditions of employment must be
2 Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting David v.
City & Cnty. of Denver, 101 F.3d 1344, 1352 (10th Cir. 1996)).
3 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
4 Id.
5 Rivero v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of New Mexico, 950 F.3d 754, 761 (10th Cir. 2020)
(quoting Green v. Brennan, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 1769, 1777, 195 L.Ed.2d 44 (2016)).
objectively intolerable[.]”6 Sonic argues that Sheets has failed to allege sufficient facts to
that end. While a close question, the Court ultimately disagrees.
Sheets alleges that she was mocked by her supervisors in private and in public for
her health issues; that her supervisors spread misinformation about her health to her
coworkers; that she was stripped of substantial responsibilities and authority after her
surgery; that she was passed over for another position; and that she was under imminent
threat of termination. Individually, a few stray remarks in bad taste, gossip, a change in job
duties, a position not won, and a looming threat of termination may not be sufficient to
allege an objectively intolerable work environment that would compel the proverbial
reasonable employee to quit.7 But in conjunction, and with the benefit of liberal inference
afforded to plaintiffs at this early stage, these allegations eke the accusation of constructive
discharge across the line of plausibility.8 As such, the Court finds that Sheets has
adequately alleged a constructive discharge.
6 Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
7 See, e.g., Brown v. LaFerry’s LP Gas Co., 708 F. App’x 518 (10th Cir. 2017) (holding
that allegations of two highly offensive racist comments over a six-month period and a
supervisor’s dissemination of misinformation among the employee’s coworkers that
resulted in those coworkers giving the employee the “cold shoulder” were insufficient to
state a constructive discharge claim); Hiatt v. Colorado Seminary, 858 F.3d 1307 (10th
Cir. 2017) (holding that allegations of an increased workload of approximately two hours
per week and new requirements on taking sick leave and submission of notes were
insufficient to state a constructive discharge claim).
8 Cf. Acrey v. American Sheep Industry Ass’n, 981 F.2d 1569 (10th Cir. 1992) (finding that
evidence that the employee believed her job was in jeopardy, that the employee had been
confronted by her supervisor with performance shortcomings, that job responsibilities had
been taken away from the employee, and that the employee received inadequate
information and training to perform her duties was sufficient to support a constructive
discharge claim).
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Sheets has adequately alleged a
constructive discharge. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss
and Brief in Support” (Dkt. 7).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of July 2021.
PATRICK R. WYRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE