Pontius Ebel v. G/O Media, Inc.

Background

Katherine Pontius Ebel worked for the Onion and related companies from 2011 until July 2019. Her positions included chief resource officer and chief of staff. After Great Hill Partners acquired the Onion and other companies in April 2019 and created G/O Media, Inc., Ebel claimed that her authority and responsibilities were reduced, that she was treated less favorably than male colleague Kurt Mueller, and that she was retaliated against after raising concerns about the planned termination of Susie Banikarim, whom Ebel described as the only woman of color on the management team.

Ebel brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York Labor Law, and common-law contract principles. The defendants also asserted counterclaims, including a remaining claim that Ebel breached her employment agreement by failing to cooperate in efforts to address her alleged reduction in responsibilities. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence presents any genuine dispute requiring a trial.

Title VII discrimination

Ebel claimed that her role was diminished because of her gender and that she received less favorable severance treatment than Mueller. The court held that Ebel had not shown a materially adverse employment action based on the alleged reduction in her role. Her formal title and immediate reporting relationship did not change, and she did not identify a specific job action that newly limited her authority. Although the closing of Onion Studios removed work that had comprised much of her duties while she was in New York, the defendants offered her additional responsibilities and invited her to suggest other areas of authority.

The court held that the evidence could permit a finding that the lack of severance was an adverse employment action, but Ebel still could not establish the required inference of gender discrimination. Ebel and Mueller had different responsibilities: Ebel focused on human resources and personnel matters, while Mueller had responsibilities involving sales, marketing, and operations at both the Onion and the broader company level. Their departures also occurred under different circumstances. The company and Mueller mutually negotiated his departure after his proposed new role was viewed as a step backward, while the company sought to retain Ebel and offered her additional responsibilities. The court therefore held that no reasonable jury could find them similarly situated for purposes of Ebel’s discrimination claim.

The court also found that the defendants offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions: organizational changes after the acquisition and a desire to retain Ebel rather than pay her to leave. Ebel did not argue that these reasons were pretexts, and the court found insufficient evidence of pretext in any event. It therefore granted summary judgment to the defendants on the Title VII discrimination claim.

Title VII retaliation

Ebel claimed that the defendants withdrew or placed on hold an offer to make her chief talent officer and reduced her existing responsibilities because she objected to Banikarim’s termination. The court held that Ebel’s conduct was not protected activity under Title VII. According to Ebel’s own account, she did not oppose the termination itself. Instead, she recommended delaying it and combining it with a larger layoff to reduce negative publicity and potential legal exposure. The court held that Title VII does not protect an effort to make potentially discriminatory conduct appear less conspicuous rather than opposing that conduct. The court granted summary judgment on this retaliation theory.

Ebel also claimed that the defendants’ counterclaims were retaliation for filing this lawsuit. The court held that a counterclaim can support a retaliation claim only if it is totally baseless, and Ebel had not shown that the counterclaims lacked factual or legal support. The timing of the counterclaims, standing alone, was insufficient to establish retaliation or pretext. The court granted summary judgment on this retaliation theory as well.

Hostile-work-environment claim

Ebel did not defend her hostile-work-environment claim in her opposition or reply papers, so the court treated it as abandoned. The court also held that the evidence would not have allowed the claim to reach a jury. The statements Ebel identified—Spanfeller referring to himself as “moi” and calling her “Madam C-Suite”—were unprofessional but did not show gender-based bias or harassment severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on this claim.

Equal Pay Act claim

Ebel did not oppose summary judgment on her Equal Pay Act claim, which the defendants understood to be based on the difference between her severance and Mueller’s. The court independently held that Ebel and Mueller were not similarly situated and granted summary judgment to the defendants on the claim.

State-law claims and counterclaim

After granting summary judgment on all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims. The court noted that the remaining claims raised unsettled or complex questions of New York law and that state courts were better positioned to decide them. It also found little efficiency benefit in retaining the contract claims, which were distinct from the federal claims.

The court dismissed without prejudice Ebel’s remaining claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, New York Labor Law, and state common law, as well as the defendants’ remaining breach-of-contract counterclaim. The court stated that these claims could be pursued in state court. The clerk was directed to close the case.