Stewart v. Qwest Corporation

Background

Kimberly Stewart worked for Qwest Corporation, doing business as CenturyLink QC, beginning in 2015. She had a neck injury that later caused pain, absences, and medical appointments. She exhausted her Family and Medical Leave Act time in October 2016, filed a short-term disability claim, and filed a workers’ compensation claim in January 2017. Qwest eventually provided a new chair and allowed unpaid stretch breaks, but Stewart continued to miss work. Qwest warned her that additional absences could lead to termination.

Stewart also claimed that she reported concerns to her supervisor, Kevin Barrett, about Qwest billing customers for equipment that had been returned or never ordered. She did not report those concerns through Qwest’s compliance hotline or to another Qwest department. She alleged that various Qwest employees mistreated her, including through comments about her medical condition, criticism, and two incidents in which Patricia Farris allegedly poked or jabbed her neck.

After the second alleged incident on August 23, 2017, Stewart emailed Qwest management saying she was being retaliated against for filing a workers’ compensation claim. She did not intend to resign at that time. The next day, after speaking with Farris by telephone, Stewart decided to quit. Qwest later opened an investigation, but Stewart did not return to work. Her lawyer told Qwest that she had been constructively discharged.

Claims and Summary-Judgment Standard

Stewart brought Minnesota-law retaliation claims based on her workers’ compensation claim and her reports of suspected fraudulent billing. Qwest moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is entered when the evidence shows there is no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

For purposes of the motion, the court assumed that Stewart had engaged in legally protected activity. It focused on whether she suffered an adverse employment action and whether there was a causal connection between that action and her protected activity.

Constructive Discharge

Stewart argued that she had been constructively discharged. Constructive discharge means that an employee resigns because working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel forced to quit, and the employer intended to force the resignation.

The court held that Stewart had not established objectively intolerable working conditions. Even accepting her complaints as true, the alleged conduct showed an unpleasant and unprofessional workplace, not conditions severe enough to meet the legal standard. The court contrasted her allegations with a case involving months of persistent sexual vulgarities, sexual assaults, and obscene gestures that the employer failed to address.

The court also held that Stewart had not shown that Qwest intended to force her to resign. According to the court, Qwest had accommodated her absences, breaks, and need for a new chair and had investigated complaints through its compliance process. The court found no evidence of a concerted effort to secure her resignation. It also noted that Stewart quit before participating in the investigation concerning the August incident.

Causal Connection

The court separately held that Stewart had not shown the required causal connection. None of the comments she identified as retaliatory referred to her workers’ compensation claim, and the evidence did not show that the employees she accused of mistreatment knew about that claim. Stewart did not connect her mistreatment to the workers’ compensation claim until the day before she resigned.

The court reached the same conclusion regarding her billing concerns. Stewart had spoken with Barrett on two occasions, but there was no evidence that Farris, Reinhardt, or the other employees she accused of harassment knew about those discussions. Without evidence that the alleged retaliators knew about the protected activity, the court found no causal connection.

Disposition

Judge David S. Doty granted Qwest’s motion for summary judgment and ordered that the case be dismissed with prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.