In Tasciyan v. Medical Numerics, No. 8:11-cv-01467 (D. Md. Oct. 9, 2012), the federal trial court permitted Talin Tasciyan’s Title VII retaliation claim to proceed to a jury trial, finding that a jury must decide if her comment on a self-evaluation form, that she believed she had not been promoted because of her gender, was the reason for her termination. The court noted that sufficient evidence of a causal connection existed because only three months had lapsed between the two events (Tasciyan completing the self-evaluation form and her termination), as well Ms. Tasciyan’s supervisors had requested that she remove the statement from her evaluation form.
Ms. Tasciyan, who represented herself during this lawsuit, was the only female employee at Medical Numerics. She had a doctorate from Duke, and had worked for the company for several years. In March 2008, she had been counseled by her two supervisors – Solomon and Steagull – regarding various instances of professional misconduct (sending abusive emails, yelling at her supervisors, clashing with co-workers). Later that year she received an evaluation which noted she was “progressing reasonably well” with correcting her misconduct. In January 2009, she completed a self-evaluation form expressing concern that the company had not promoted her because she was a woman. Tasciyan claimed the next month her supervisors Solomon and Steagall asked her to remove the statements, arguing they were inappropriate.
In February 2009, as well, Tasciyan had sent Solomon an email, which she also sent to a customer, challenging the manner in which he was monitoring her work for the customer. She was disciplined for that email in March 2009, and during that disciplinary meeting, she allegedly became belligerent and stormed out. Tasciyan was told to take the rest of the day off, but refused. She was fired one week later.
The court determined that Tasciyan’s promotion statement in her self-evaluation form was protected activity for purposes of Title VII. Although the company argued that Tasciyan was fired because of the unprofessional email and her behavior during the discipline meeting, the trial court decided that a jury could conclude the email was not unprofessional or otherwise inappropriate, and that a jury could ultimately conclude that the company was using that email, and her behavior at the meeting (which Tasciyan explained was a reasonable reaction to believing the company was mistreating her), as a pretext for retaliation. The court was very motivated by the fact that the same two supervisors who had asked Tasciyan to remove the statements about gender bias from her self-evaluation were also at the disciplinary meeting and participated in the decision to fire her.
Employers must be careful to have independent review and oversight of disciplinary decisions made with respect to employees who have engaged in protected activity. Employers with a small workforce particularly need to consider what steps and processes to implement to insulate them from retaliation claims, when the supervisory pool may overlap with employee decisions.