Opinion ID: 170256
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Title VII Sex Discrimination Claims.

Text: Plaintiffs' Title VII claims are two-fold. First, Plaintiffs collectively contend that, because their terminations were made based on their individual status as husband, wife and daughter, which they contend are inherently sex-based, they have stated a prima facie case of sex-based discrimination for purposes of the McDonnell Douglas framework. Plaintiffs deny the company is entitled to summary judgment on this claim because its proffered reason for their terminationsconcerns about Mr. Anderson's management decisions and monetary transfers to CKK and his direct supervision of his wife and daughter as CKK staffare not only unworthy of belief, but constitute direct evidence of the company's intent to discriminate against them as husband, wife and daughter. Mr. Adamson denies any misfeasance or wrongdoing as CEO and together with his wife and daughter, asserts the fact the anti-nepotism policy was not applied to a father and son also working for the company establishes they were targeted on the basis of their familial, i.e., gender-based, status. Each also contends a board member's stated concern that. Barry would exert undue influence over his wife and daughter constitutes direct evidence of sex-based discriminationagainst Barry as a man who ostensibly would unduly influence women and Patricia and Jessica as women who would be so influenced. We address both assertions below.