In Wilson v. Mercury Management, LLC, No. 23-2245-KHV, 2023 WL 6961987 (D.Kan. Oct. 20, 2023), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of discrimination asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
Of note here, plaintiff, who worked as an Administrative Assistant and is Native American, alleged that she “complained to her supervisor and Human Resources about racial harassment and discrimination because defendant treated white employees more favorably than non-white employees”, that “[f]ollowing her report, plaintiff and other non-white employees experienced unfair and unequal treatment, unequal job assignments, unequal application of policies and rules and discriminatory terminations”, and that two weeks after a complaint of race discrimination, she was terminated.
The court explained:
Title VII and Section 1981 prohibit employers from discriminating against an employee on the basis of race. For discrimination claims based on disparate treatment, plaintiff must establish that she was treated differently because of race and that she suffered adverse employment action. E.E.O.C. v. PVNF, L.L.C., 487 F.3d 790, 800 (10th Cir. 2007). In addition, Section 1981 discrimination claims require that plaintiff allege that defendant had the intent to discriminate on the basis of race. Hampton v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 247 F.3d 1091, 1101–02 (10th Cir. 2001).
Assuming as true plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations, she has sufficiently alleged that she is of Native American race and that throughout the course of her employment she experienced unfair and unequal treatment, unequal job assignments, unequal application of policies and rules and a discriminatory termination. Further, as required by Section 1981, plaintiff asserts that defendant intentionally treated white employees more favorably than non-white employees.
Accordingly, the Court overrules defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Count I race discrimination claim under Title VII and Section 1981.
The court further held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged retaliatory termination and retaliatory harassment, but not hostile work environment.