Toomer v. Fed. Reserve Bank St. Louis
| Decision Date | 15 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 4:20CV1562 HEA |
| Parties | CORNELIA LASHAWN TOOMER, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK ST. LOUIS, Defendant, |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Partial Dismissal, [Doc. No. 6]. Plaintiff opposes the motion, and the issues are fully briefed. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant alleging discrimination and retaliation in her employment. The Complaint alleges race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Count I); race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C § 1981 (Count II), and retaliation for lodging complaints of race discrimination in violation of Title VII (Count III) and § 1981 (Count IV). Specifically, the Complaint alleges the following facts:[1]
Plaintiff is an African American female. Plaintiff was employed by the Federal Reserve Bank St. Louis (hereinafter “FRB STL”), which is a part of the United States Federal Reserve System. United States Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. It was funded by Congress in 1913. The United States Federal Reserve System is a federal system, composed of a central agency - the Board of Governors and twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks. The Board and the Reserve Banks share responsibility for supervising and regulating certain financial institutions and activities, for providing banking services to depository institutions and the federal government. A network of twelve Federal Reserve Banks and their Branches carries out a variety of System functions, including operating a nationwide payments system, distributing the nation's currency and coin, supervising, and regulating member banks and bank holding companies, and serving as banker for the U.S Treasury. The twelve Reserve Banks are each responsible for a particular geographic area or district of the United States.
FRB STL serves the Eighth Federal Reserve District, which includes Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee Mississippi, and Arkansas. The Board of Governors has broad oversight responsibility for the operations and activities of the Federal Reserve Banks and their Branches. The Reserve Banks are the operating arms of the United States Federal Reserve System. They combine both public and private elements in their makeup and organization. The directors of each Federal Reserve Board oversee the day-to-day operations of their banks.
Plaintiff alleges the Court's jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C §1331 and 1343, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). She further alleges that the unlawful employment practices alleged in her Complaint occurred in St Louis, Missouri, where FRB STL is located and employed Plaintiff.
On February 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination against the “Federal Reserve Bank” with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). It was designated as Charge Number 510-2019-01873. She amended her charge on June 13, 2019 by correcting a naming misnomer and named Defendant Federal Reserve Bank St. Louis as a Respondent. Charge Number 510-2019-01873 was assigned to Federal Reserve Bank Atlanta (hereinafter “FRB ATL”). Charge Number 510-2020-04286 was assigned to FRB STL. On December 31, 2019, Plaintiff amended Charge Number 510-2020-04286 to add a claim for retaliation.
On September 4, 2020, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue against FRB STL (Charge Number 510-2020-04286).
At the time FRB STL hired Plaintiff, she had already built a long career in the Federal Reserve Bank System. FRB ATL first hired Plaintiff in 1993 and Plaintiff worked there for four years as a Senior Executive Assistant. In 1997, Plaintiff resigned for a different job opportunity, but rejoined FRB ATL as a Senior Executive Assistant in 2007. During her tenure with FRB ATL, Plaintiff was awarded the “Key Player Award, ” and the “Pat Barron Legacy Award.” During her tenure at FRB ATL, Plaintiff earned her master's degree in Project Management. In 2014 Plaintiff moved to Jacksonville, Florida and worked for FRB ATL remotely.
In 2015, FRB STL posted the position of Supervision Learning Analyst (hereinafter “SVL Analyst”) on its website. FRB STL oversees the Federal Reserve System's “Supervision Learning Office” (the “SVL”), which develops, maintains, and operates the Federal Reserve Bank's national bank examiner training programs. In October 2015, Plaintiff submitted her application for the SVL Analyst position to Defendant FRB STL. Susan Black and Kathryn Kelly, managers at FRB STL, interviewed Plaintiff. After the interview, Black offered Plaintiff the SVL Analyst position. When Plaintiff was hired by FRB STL, it was determined that “due to the permanent nature of the [SVL] SSO Analyst position, FRB ATL has authorization to backfill the vacated position...” Plaintiff's position with FRB STL was expected to be permanent and she no longer had a position at FRB ATL, as she was being replaced.
As an SVL analyst for FRB STL, Plaintiff conducted process improvement for the Supervision Learning Office. Some of Plaintiff's duties included assisting employees with training, reviewing curriculum, improving learning processes, and working with external vendors for examiners. Plaintiff monitored training registrations and coordinated trainings for examiners. Plaintiff held the SVL analyst position from October of 2015 to December 31, 2019.
From October of 2015 until December 31, 2019, FRB STL controlled the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff's work time was solely devoted to FRB STL. 41. Plaintiff performed no work for FRB ATL from October of 2015 to December 31, 2019. Plaintiff was advised, “Given the amount of work anticipated, [Plaintiff] will not have additional capacity to contribute to [FRB ATL] projects or initiatives.” FRB STL was the only bank that could assign work to Plaintiff. FRB STL was the only bank that did assign work to Plaintiff. FRB STL delegated work to Plaintiff and determined deadlines for such work. If Plaintiff wanted to take vacation or adjust her schedule, she had to receive permission from FRB STL. Plaintiff recorded her work attendance in FRB STL's software called “Pinpoint.” FRB STL's Operations Manager Kathryn Kelly was Plaintiff's direct supervisor. Plaintiff did not report to anyone in FRB ATL. FRB STL established Plaintiff's work objectives. FRB STL determined Plaintiff's rate of compensation. FRB STL gave Plaintiff feedback and managed Plaintiff' job performance. From October of 2015 until December 11, 2019, FRB STL conducted Plaintiff's performance reviews. FRB STL determined Plaintiff's work schedule. Although she worked remotely, Plaintiff flew to St. Louis at least twice a year for team meetings. Plaintiff did not travel to Atlanta for work obligations.
In addition to Kelly's supervision, Plaintiff had monthly meetings with Kelly's supervisor, Susan Black. During these meetings, Plaintiff told Black about her progress in different work assignments and projects.
Plaintiff met weekly with Kathryn Kelly. Kelly and Plaintiff discussed Plaintiff's work progress and projects during these meetings. Kelly also discussed Plaintiff's opportunities for promotion in these meetings. She suggested that if Plaintiff completed certain milestones, such as working with multiple lines of business, she would be eligible for a Senior Analyst position at FRB STL.
Plaintiff successfully completed these milestones. Plaintiff led large scale projects and worked across multiple business lines. Plaintiff was never awarded any promotional opportunity by FRB STL
In mid-2018, Plaintiff's supervisors (Kelly and Black) began treating her worse than her Caucasian peers by giving her a heavier workload, decreasing her pay, and refusing to promote her. She was given a departing employee's workload in July 2018. Though Plaintiff began performing the work of a Senior Analyst, she did not receive an increase in pay or a promotion to the Senior Analyst position. Instead, FRB STL sought to cut Plaintiff's pay by more than 20% after nearly doubling her work duties.
In September of 2018, Jennifer Gibilterra, Assistant Vice President at FRB ATL, told Plaintiff that FRB STL would start paying her salary as of January 1, 2020. Though Plaintiff worked at the direction of FRB STL, FRB ATL paid her salary under a “cross-district employment policy.” During the September 2018 meeting, Gibilterra told Plaintiff that Susan Black at FRB STL made the decision to decrease Plaintiff's salary by $20, 000. Gibilterra assured Plaintiff that neither her position nor duties would change simply because payroll was processed from FRB STL. Gibilterra confirmed that Plaintiff was not being terminated. Gibilterra explained that Plaintiff could take the pay cut or quit, but she had until December of 2019 to consider her options.
One month later, in October of 2018, Black asked Plaintiff if she would accept pay cut or quit. Black never suggested that Plaintiff would be involuntarily terminated. When Plaintiff asked why her salary needed to be cut by $20, 000, Black told her that it would put her in line with other analysts on the team. The majority of the other SVL analysts on Plaintiff's team were Caucasian. When Plaintiff replied to Black that she had more seniority and education that the other analysts on her team, Black responded that FRB STL wasn't crediting her seniority or education in determining her pay. Plaintiff told Black that she felt like FRB STL was demoting her while increasing her workload. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial