Loudon v. K.C. Rehab. Hosp., Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02713-HLT

339 F.Supp.3d 1231

Catherine J. LOUDON, Plaintiff,

v.K.C. REHABILITATION HOSPITAL, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 2:16-cv-02713-HLT

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

Signed September 20, 2018

Amy L. Coopman, Foland, Wickens, Roper, Hofer & Crawford, PC, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff.

Jeannie DeVeney, Robert A. Sheffield, Littler Mendelson, PC, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HOLLY L. TEETER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Catherine Loudon alleges claims for retaliation against her former employer, Defendant K.C. Rehabilitation Hospital, Inc., pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. , and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (" Section 1981"). Defendant moves for summary judgment on both claims. Doc. 40. Because Plaintiff cannot show that she engaged in the requisite "protected activity" to support her claims for retaliation, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's claims.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Employment

The following facts are uncontroverted or related in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the nonmoving party. Defendant operates MidAmerica Rehabilitation Hospital ("MARH") in Overland Park, Kansas, which provides specialized inpatient and outpatient care for patients recovering from a variety of conditions and injuries. Doc. 41 ¶¶ 1-2. Defendant hired Plaintiff as MARH's Human Resources Director ("HRD") on December 2, 2013, and Plaintiff served as HRD until her termination. Id. ¶¶ 4, 9. As HRD, Plaintiff oversaw all Human Resources office operations at MARH, and her job responsibilities included "plan[ning], organiz[ing] and direct[ing] all aspects of Human Resources Management," ensuring compliance with company policies and legal aspects of the employee-employer relationship, and "report[ing] questionable situations, concerns, complaints or harassment." Id. ¶¶ 11-12. Throughout the course of her employment, Plaintiff reported to Troy DeDecker, MARH's Chief Executive Officer. Id. ¶¶ 3, 10.

B. Salary Equity

During Plaintiff's first two weeks of employment, Plaintiff and DeDecker discussed the issue of pay equity at MARH. Id. ¶ 15. DeDecker terminated Plaintiff's predecessor as HRD for creating—and failing to remedy—salary inequity issues among MARH staff. Id. ¶¶ 13-14. DeDecker therefore instructed Plaintiff to review employee compensation to identify any inequities. Id. ¶ 16.

In the course of her review, Plaintiff discovered instances where non-diverse employees were paid at a higher rate than their diverse colleagues. Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiff reported her findings to DeDecker and made recommendations to remedy the inequities. Id. ¶¶ 22, 24-26. DeDecker told Plaintiff on various occasions that he "agree[d]" with her findings and "would consider" her proposal. Id. ¶¶ 23, 32. Plaintiff brought up the pay equity project with DeDecker four to five additional times over the summer of 2014. Id. ¶ 33. Plaintiff felt DeDecker was "annoyed" when she continued to bring up the project, and, during one meeting in October 2014, DeDecker became verbally loud and confrontational. Id. ¶¶ 34, 45-46.

In November and December 2014, Plaintiff sent DeDecker the names and proposed salary adjustments for eight employees. Id. ¶¶ 47, 49. DeDecker promptly emailed Plaintiff's proposal to his supervisor, recommending his supervisor approve the increases. Id. ¶¶ 51-52. DeDecker then forwarded this email to Plaintiff, commenting, "I am hopeful we can get this done. Thank you for putting the spreadsheet together." Id. ¶ 54. The salary increases were ultimately implemented. Id. ¶ 55.

C. Sexual Harassment Investigation

Approximately two months later, on February 2, 2015, a female MARH employee— referred to in the parties' briefing as "LO"—complained to Plaintiff that a male coworker— referred to as "JK"—sexually harassed her. Id. ¶ 58. Plaintiff met with DeDecker on the same day to inform him of the complaint and told DeDecker she would investigate the allegations. Id. ¶ 59.

During their meeting, Plaintiff and DeDecker discussed what corrective action, if any, needed to be taken. DeDecker asked Plaintiff if MARH could terminate LO's employment. Id. ¶ 64. Plaintiff responded that MARH could not terminate LO for filing a complaint and would need to investigate before determining how to proceed. Id. ¶ 65. Plaintiff recommended suspending both JK and LO during the pendency of the investigation for a "clean case." Id. ¶ 68. DeDecker asked if they could suspend LO but not JK, and Plaintiff advised that hospital policy dictated they suspend the alleged harasser and that suspending only LO could expose MARH to legal action. Id. ¶¶ 70-72; Doc. 44 ¶ 170. Plaintiff felt DeDecker was "angry" and "unhappy" with her recommendation. Doc. 41 ¶¶ 73-75. DeDecker directed Plaintiff not to suspend JK. Id. ¶ 77. DeDecker also instructed Plaintiff not to contact corporate Human Resources ("Corporate HR") about LO's complaint. Id. ¶ 66.

Following her investigation, on February 12, 2015, Plaintiff met with DeDecker to inform him that the investigation was inconclusive. Id. ¶ 78. DeDecker asked Plaintiff if MARH could terminate LO's employment for filing a false complaint. Id. ¶ 79. When Plaintiff responded that she would not recommend terminating LO—again, due to potential legal ramifications— DeDecker yelled at Plaintiff, stating "this was not the outcome he wanted." Id. ¶¶ 80-81. LO was not terminated and remained employed with MARH for the duration of DeDecker's employment. Id. ¶ 82.

Plaintiff also told DeDecker that—because LO might call either the "ethics hotline" or "corporate"—Plaintiff needed to contact Corporate HR to apprise them of the investigation. Id. ¶ 87. Although Plaintiff has testified that she was concerned DeDecker would fire her for contacting Corporate HR, in response DeDecker simply told Plaintiff to "be careful." Id. ¶ 88; Doc. 44 ¶ 182. Plaintiff subsequently contacted Corporate HR, and Corporate HR asked Plaintiff to send documentation related to her investigation. Doc. 41 ¶¶ 89, 92.

D. Plaintiff's Termination

Six days after meeting with DeDecker, on February 18, 2015, Plaintiff provided her written investigation report to DeDecker and Corporate HR. Id. ¶ 118. Upon reviewing Plaintiff's report, DeDecker became concerned with the content of the report and inaccuracies in the timeline. Id. ¶¶ 119-121. The inaccuracies are summarized as follows:¹

Contents of Plaintiff's Investigative Report Findings of Review
LO made her sexual harassment complaint to         LO was not scheduled to work on February 4
Plaintiff on February 4, 2015.                     2015 and did not clock in, did not use her ID
                                                   badge to enter MARH, and did not go to the
                                                   HR office. It appears LO made the initial
                                                   complaint to Plaintiff on February 2, 2015
LO put a note under Plaintiff's door on            LO was not scheduled to work on February 5
February 5, 2015.                                  2015, and did not clock in, did not use her ID
                                                   badge to enter MARH, and did not go to the
                                                   HR office
JK's brother met with HR on February 10,           Plaintiff was not in the building on February
2015, at 7:00 a.m.                                 10, 2015, so it appears JK's brother met with
                                                   Plaintiff's assistant, not Plaintiff
Plaintiff met with LO on February 10, 2015, to     LO was not scheduled to work on February 10,
discuss the status of the investigation.           2015, and did not clock in. It appears Plaintiff
                                                   and LO met on February 11, 2015.
Plaintiff met with JK on February 11, 2015, at     Plaintiff did not arrive to work on February 11,
7:30 a.m.                                          2015, until well after 7:30 a.m. MARH video
                                                   showed Plaintiff and JK walking into the HR
                                                   office at 7:56 a.m. on February 12, 2015. It
                                                   appears Plaintiff and JK met on February 12,
                                                   2015, at 7:56 a.m.
Plaintiff met with LO on February 11, 2015,        LO stated she met with Plaintiff on February
regarding the results of the investigation.        12, 2015, regarding the results of the
                                                   investigation, which is consistent with MARH
                                                   video. It appears Plaintiff and LO met on
                                                   February 12, 2015, regarding the results of the
                                                   investigation.

Id. ¶ 125. Confronted with questions regarding her investigation, Plaintiff admitted the investigative report contained inaccuracies. Id. ¶¶ 134-144. Defendant subsequently terminated Plaintiff's employment effective February 25, 2015. Id. ¶ 147.

Following her termination, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on December 16, 2015, claiming gender- and race-based discrimination and retaliation. Doc. 1-1. On July 20, 2016, the EEOC issued Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue letter. Doc. 1-2. Plaintiff filed her Complaint with this Court on October 18, 2016, alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII and Section 1981. Doc. 1. Defendant moves for summary judgment on both claims. Doc. 40.

II. STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate where "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). In applying this standard, courts must view "all facts and any reasonable inferences...