Hills v. AT&T Mobility Servs.

• Decision Date: 16 September 2022
• Docket Number: 3:17-CV-556 JD
• Citation: Hills v. AT&T Mobility Servs., 3:17-CV-556 JD (N.D. Ind. Sep 16, 2022)
• Parties: KATIA HILLS, Plaintiff, v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

1

KATIA HILLS, Plaintiff, v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC, Defendant.

No. 3:17-CV-556 JD

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

September 16, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

JON E DEGUILIO, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Katia Hills (“Hills”) has moved for summary judgment on her disparate treatment claim against Defendant AT&T Mobility Services LLC (“AT&T”). Hills claims that AT&T automatically excused certain categories of absences, such as disability accommodation, but did not automatically excuse pregnancy-related absences. (DE 140 at 2.) Hills asserts that this policy resulted in her being unable to obtain excused absences, eventually resulting in her being terminated from AT&T. (Id.) For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Hills motion for summary judgment, finding that AT&T has put forth a legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification for why Hills did not receive accommodations.

A. Factual Background

The facts, viewed in the light most favorable to AT&T, as the non-moving party, are as follows. On April 7, 2014, Katia Hills began working as a sales support representative at an AT&T store in Elkhart, Indiana. (DE 141-3 at 2; DE 141-4; DE 141-6 at 21:6-9.) Hills stayed in this position until October 2014, at which point AT&T promoted her to retail sales consultant. (DE 141-4; DE 141-6 at 27:4-12; DE 66 ¶ 9.) The same month she was promoted, Hills learned that she was pregnant. (DE 141-6 at 274:6-8.)

As a sales employee of AT&T, Hills was subject to AT&T's Sales Attendance Guidelines (“SAG”) policy. The SAG policy was implemented in 2011 in order to establish expectations regarding employee attendance, while also providing consistent treatment to employees. (DE 141-9 at 2.) The SAG accomplished this by using a point system where employees accrued points for unexcused absences, tardies, or early departures, which the policy called “occurrences.” (DE 141-9 ¶ 8.) Excused absences, tardies, or early departures did not count as “occurrences” under the SAG policy, and so would not accrue points. (Id. ¶ 2) Under the SAG, if there was an “occurrence,” then employees would receive points commensurate with the length of that occurrence. For example, an absence of 6 to 15 minutes would accrue % point, while any absence greater than or equal to 121 minutes would equate to 1 point missed.^[1] (DE 141-9 ¶ 8.)

During the course of Hills' employment, she was subject to two versions of the SAG policy. When Hills started with AT&T, she was subject to a policy which was effective beginning on October 17, 2011 (the “2011 SAG” policy). (DE 141-9 at 2.) On May 1, 2015, the 2011 SAG policy was supplanted with a new policy (the “2015 SAG” policy). (DE 141-10 at 2.) While each SAG policy penalized employees' unexcused absences with points, or fractions of points, there were some differences between the two.

First, the policies listed different express categories of excused absences. The 2011 SAG provided a list of 11 express categories of excused absences which would not trigger the imposition of a point or a fraction of a point:

Excused time away includes, but is not limited to . . . approved leave of absence, scheduled vacation, scheduled excused days with pay, jury duty, bereavement, court subpoenas, military leave, short term disability, FMLA (or other federal or state mandated leave), contractual time off for union business and any other absence that is mandated by law or Company policy.

(DE 141-9 ¶ 2.) The 2015 SAG policy included a longer list of excused absences. This list expressly included the above categories, but also had new expressly listed categories, such as “approved job accommodations,” “company-initiated closings,” and “company recognized holidays.” (DE 141-10 ¶ 3.).^[2] Second, there were changes concerning how the point system operated. While the 2011 SAG policy gave supervisors discretion “to consider extenuating/extreme circumstances where appropriate” and decline to impose a point or fraction of a point for an “occurrence,” the 2015 SAG policy no longer provided supervisors this discretion. (DE 141-9 ¶ 12; DE 141-11 at 129:9-13, 146:13-148; DE 141-10.) Additionally, the point thresholds resulting in discipline differed. For example, in the 2011 SAG policy, once 7 points were accrued, termination resulted. (DE 141-9 ¶ 11.) The 2015 SAG policy changed the point threshold for termination to 8 points.^[3] (DE 141-10 ¶ 11.) Finally, under the 2011 SAG policy, occurrences and associated point values expired after 180 days of active employment following the occurrence, while occurrences and associated point values under the 2015 SAG policy only expired after 12 months of active employment following the occurrence. (DE 141-9 ¶ 10; DE 141-10 ¶ 11.)

Following Hills' pregnancy in October 2014, she began to accumulate points under the 2011 SAG for various “occurrences.” Between November 11, 2014, and April 7, 2015, Hills had three unexcused absences and five tardies, resulting in Hills accruing 6 points. (DE 141-20 at 2; DE 150-16 at 2.). Hills accrued these initial six points when the 2011 SAG was in effect. (DE 141-9 at 2.) Starting on May 1, 2015, the 2015 SAG went into effect. (DE 141-10 at 2.) Between May 4, 2015, and May 21, 2015, Hills visited her ob-gyn or the emergency room ten times. (DE 143; DE 144.) For many of these visits, Hills was able to receive an excuse from AT&T. However, she was unable to avoid points on two dates. First, on May 4, Hills missed work because she had to visit her ob-gyn, which was not excused. (DE 143 at 8-9.) Second, on May 16, 2015, Hills went to the emergency room reporting that she could not feel her fetus moving, which was not excused. (DE 150-16 at 3; DE 144 at 116-17.) For those two absences, Hills received two more points, bringing her total number of points to eight. (DE 141-7 at 2.) After accumulating eight points, Hills was terminated. (Id.)

The parties dispute the reason for this termination. AT&T maintains that both “the 2011 and the 2015 SAG instructed that absences due to an approved job accommodation should be excused.” (DE 150-36 ¶ 95.) AT&T asserts that both policies would cover “circumstances when a Sales Employee's own health, whatever the condition, affects her ability to come to work,” and could do so under “short term disability, approved job accommodations, and Federal/State/Municipal mandated leaves,” as well as other types of absences. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 33.) AT&T does not dispute that Hills was absent or tardy on the above dates, or that she accrued points. Rather, AT&T claims that Hills accrued points because she failed to ever contact the Integrated Disability Service Center (“IDSC”), which was in charge of reviewing accommodation requests. (Id. ¶ 101-102; DE 150 at 19-20.) In other words, Hills could have secured excused absences, even though her pregnancy-related absences did not rise to the level of qualifying for short-term disability, disability under the ADA, or leave under the FMLA, had she contacted the group at AT&T who handled such requests. (Id. ¶ 39.)

On the other hand, Hills maintains that AT&T's policy was facially discriminatory, providing her with “no avenue for avoiding penalty for pregnancy-related absences” until she became eligible for FMLA coverage in April 2015. (DE 141 at 8 n.14.) According to Plaintiff, this made the policy a “but for” cause for her July firing, since she had obtained six points prior to becoming eligible for FMLA, putting her within two points of discharge. (Id.) Meaning, she would not have been fired “but for” the policy, which Hills asserts provided no path for a woman to avoid pregnancy-related absences unless her condition rose to the level of disability under the ADA, the employee qualified for leave under the FMLA, or the employee qualified for shortterm disability. (DE 142 ¶ 39.)

On July 14, 2017, Hills filed a complaint in this Court, which sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages. Hills filed her first amended complaint in February of 2018 (DE 16), then a second amended complaint on December 11, 2018 (the “Complaint”). (DE 61.) This Complaint included five causes of action:

I. Title VII, Disparate Treatment Because of Sex (Pregnancy)

II. Title VII, Disparate Treatment Because of Sex (Harassment)

III. Title I of the ADA, Failure to Provide a Reasonable Accommodation

IV. Interference in Violation of the FMLA V. Retaliation in Violation of the FMLA

(DE 61 ¶¶ 38-69.) On November 15, 2021, Hills moved for partial summary judgment as to her first claim for disparate treatment because of sex under Title VII. (DE 140.) AT&T has filed a response to this motion (DE 150), and Hills has filed her reply. (DE 151.) Accordingly, the motion is ripe for review. In addition to her motion for summary judgment, Hills has filed a motion to strike certain portions of AT&T's response. (DE 152.)

The Court now considers both motions.^[4]

B. Standard of Review

On summary judgment, the burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that 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). That means that the Court must construe all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, making every legitimate inference and resolving every doubt in its favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Summary judgment is not a tool to decide legitimately contested issues, and it may not be granted unless no reasonable jury could decide in favor of the nonmoving party. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

However a party opposing a properly supported summary judgment motion may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own pleading, but rather must “marshal and present the...