Kelee Williams v. Robert Half International, Inc.

Background

Kelee Williams worked for Robert Half International Inc. (RHI) for several years and was promoted to Vice President of Managed Business Services. She claimed that RHI discriminated against her because of her gender, treated her unfairly in compensation and promotion decisions, and retaliated after she complained. By the time of trial, her remaining claims were gender discrimination under Title VII, retaliation under Title VII, and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The court held a bench trial from May 1 through May 11, 2023. Williams challenged, among other things, the reduction of her client accounts after her promotion, RHI’s failure to give her an individualized compensation plan, exclusion from meetings, rejection for a Regional Vice President position, transfer to a Senior Client Services Director position, and what she described as a constructive discharge. Constructive discharge is a claim that working conditions became so intolerable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign.

Gender-discrimination claim

The court applied the burden-shifting framework used for Title VII discrimination claims. Under that framework, a plaintiff generally must first show that she belonged to a protected class, met her employer’s legitimate expectations, suffered an adverse employment action, and was treated less favorably than similarly qualified employees outside the protected class.

The court found that some events materially affected Williams’s employment, including her move from the Vice President role to the Senior Client Services Director role, which the court described as a demotion. But Williams did not prove that RHI took those actions because of her gender or that similarly situated men were treated differently.

The court found that Williams had agreed to reduce her client accounts when she accepted the Vice President of Managed Business Services position. It also found that her exclusion from identified meetings was not shown to have affected her business success or was explained by the meetings’ subject matter or attendance requirements. Williams did not prove that RHI’s failure to provide an individualized compensation plan was gender-based, even though another employee had received such a plan.

Regarding the Regional Vice President position, the court found that Williams had not met RHI’s legitimate performance expectations in her existing role. The court credited evidence that she had not developed new client business or revenue and that other candidates had stronger qualifications and demonstrated success. Another woman, Beth Brockway, was also selected for part of the Regional Vice President role. The court therefore found that Williams did not prove gender discrimination in the hiring decision.

The court also rejected the constructive-discharge theory. It found that the evidence did not show working conditions so intolerable that Williams had no reasonable alternative but to quit. The court stated that Broadspire, a third-party benefits administrator, could not be treated as RHI for purposes of the benefits-related conduct because Williams did not show that RHI controlled Broadspire’s claims administration.

Title VII retaliation

The court found that some of Williams’s complaints were protected activity under Title VII. Specifically, it found that complaints to Marilyn Bird in October 2018, complaints to George Denlinger in May and June or July 2019, and complaints in December 2019 concerned alleged unequal treatment of women or the assignment of her accounts to men.

However, the court found no causal connection between those complaints and an adverse employment action. It concluded that the account changes were connected to Williams’s agreed-upon promotion structure or geographic assignments, that she was not selected for the Regional Vice President position because RHI reasonably chose more qualified candidates, and that the investigation into her complaints was not shown to have materially affected her employment. The court therefore found that Williams failed to prove Title VII retaliation.

FLSA retaliation

The FLSA protects employees who make complaints that clearly assert rights covered by that law and seek protection of those rights. The court found that Williams’s workplace complaints about pay, bonuses, and accounts were not clear enough, in their context, to tell RHI that she was asserting FLSA rights.

The court found that a draft complaint sent by Williams’s lawyer in April 2020 more clearly asserted protected rights. But it found no adverse employment action occurring afterward that was caused by that complaint. The court therefore found that Williams failed to prove FLSA retaliation.

Disposition

The court concluded that Williams failed to prove her gender-discrimination, Title VII retaliation, and FLSA retaliation claims. It ordered that judgment be entered in favor of RHI and directed RHI to file a proposed judgment, approved as to form by Williams, within seven business days of the order.