Opinion ID: 183769
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Center for Learning Excellence

Text: Bereatha Kyle-Eiland (“Kyle-Eiland”), an African-American female, worked at OSU for 17 years before her employment was terminated in May of 2007. Twelve of those years passed uneventfully, during which time Kyle-Eiland was promoted multiple times and worked at several 1 Kyle-Eiland raises only the claim of Title VII retaliation, as to Defendant Albert Neff, on appeal. -2- No. 09-3965 different colleges within the University. At all times, Kyle-Eiland was an unclassified at-will employee.2 The events leading to this case began in January of 2006 when, after some difficulties as an administrative assistant in OSU’s College of Nursing, Kyle-Eiland sought a new position within OSU.3 Lynette Stump (“Stump”), an assistant to the dean of the College of Education and Human Ecology (“EHE”) and a former co-worker of Kyle-Eiland’s, recommended Kyle-Eiland for a position within EHE. Kyle-Eiland was hired, and on February 15, 2006, she began work as an administrative assistant for EHE and the Center for Learning Excellence (“CLEX”), on a split schedule. During the days of the week when Kyle-Eiland worked at the EHE office, she understood that she would be under Stump’s “functional” supervision. During the days when she worked at the CLEX building, she understood that she would be under the “functional” supervision of the Director of CLEX, Respondent Albert Neff (“Neff”). When this arrangement began, it was apparently KyleEiland’s belief that she would be subject to the actual supervision of Stump only, even though both Neff and Stump understood, and claim to have clearly communicated to Kyle-Eiland at the time of her hire, that she would be supervised by Neff. According to Neff, Kyle-Eiland’s primary responsibilities at CLEX were the preparation of various financial reports, along with light human resources and office management functions. The 2 Ohio law creates a civil service system in which state employees are defined as either “classified civil servants” or “unclassified employees.” Applicable definitions are set forth in Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 124.01-124.99. See also Christophel v. Kukulinsky, 61 F.3d 479, 482 (6th Cir. 1995) (detailing differences between classified and unclassified employees under Ohio state law). 3 During the course of her employment with the OSU College of Nursing, Kyle-Eiland filed three OCRC complaints charging racial discrimination and retaliation. -3- No. 09-3965 required financial reports were to be prepared for CLEX and four additional sub-projects, and were to be submitted to Neff (or other project directors) on a monthly and on-demand basis. From the outset, Neff seems to have been dissatisfied with the quality of the reports that Kyle-Eiland produced. According to Neff, the reports that he received were not in the format requested, nor were they usable for the purposes intended. Neff apparently spoke with Kyle-Eiland about his expectations for the reports on more than one occasion, to little or no effect. Neff was also concerned about Kyle-Eiland’s interpersonal skills, having heard from various project directors that she had been rude or abrupt in professional discussions. According to Kyle-Eiland, she was not placed under Neff’s actual supervision until sometime after August 1, 2006, and so was under no obligation to follow his orders or meet his performance expectations. She additionally asserts that she received contradictory instructions, on more than one occasion, about the necessity of doing reports in the format requested by Neff. In August of 2006, Neff approached the human resources manager for EHE, Lorena Weber (“Weber”), to discuss his complaints about Kyle-Eiland’s work performance. After consulting with Weber, Neff wrote a performance improvement plan (“PIP”) for Kyle-Eiland, in which he outlined the issues in Kyle-Eiland’s job performance that were of concern to him. Neff and Weber contacted Kyle-Eiland to institute the PIP on August 22, 2006. Kyle-Eiland claims that this is the first time she was made aware that the supervision of her position “would be transferred” to Neff. -4- No. 09-3965 Kyle-Eiland, Neff and Weber met on November 9, 2006, to review and discuss the PIP.4 The PIP outlined deficiencies in four areas: “financial reporting,” “complaints,” “timeliness,” and “unexplained/unapproved absences.” Kyle-Eiland produced a written response to the PIP, which loosely addressed each of these concerns. Kyle-Eiland explained the problems with financial reporting as stemming from cross-communications within the college, which led her to believe that the reports requested by Neff were not required; she generally denied problems with purchasing, paying vendors and keeping inventory; she also denied accusations of rudeness and unapproved absences. Although Kyle-Eiland does not assert that either Neff or Weber knew that she had previously filed OCRC/EEOC complaints within the University when they initially met concerning the PIP, on November 9, 2006, Kyle-Eiland filed an OCRC complaint charging discriminatory retaliation by Neff.5 The complaint does not specifically mention the PIP, but instead claims that Stump told KyleEiland that she had to “look out for [her]self” and that Neff was “trying to fire [her] or make [her] quit.” Neff and Weber deny having any knowledge of Kyle-Eiland’s previous OCRC complaints at the time of the first PIP meeting; Kyle-Eiland states that she has no knowledge of anyone ever discussing her previous OCRC complaints with Neff. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the 4 The meeting was delayed because Kyle-Eiland was on FMLA leave through September and October. 5 Kyle-Eiland received a right to sue letter for this charge from OCRC on February 14, 2008. -5- No. 09-3965 record to show that any of the OCRC complaints were available in Kyle-Eiland’s OSU personnel file, or that Neff or Weber had seen Kyle-Eiland’s personnel file prior to the initiation of the PIP. On December 14, 2006, Neff, Weber, Kyle-Eiland and her attorney, Michael Moses, met for a second time regarding the PIP. Neff asserts that there had been no significant improvement in Kyle-Eiland’s performance following the initiation of the PIP, and this was apparently conveyed to Kyle-Eiland at the meeting. Following the meeting, Neff set up training sessions between KyleEiland and Christina Fultz (“Fultz”), Kyle-Eiland’s predesessor at CLEX, in order to facilitate KyleEiland’s improvement in her reporting functions. Fultz and Kyle-Eiland met for a total of approximately 40 hours in and around February of 2006 in order for Fultz to train Kyle-Eiland. Kyle-Eiland claims that after training with Fultz she began to produce reports to Neff’s specifications; Neff does not agree. In late December 2006 or early January 2007, Kyle-Eiland contacted a resource management analyst at OSU’s Office of Finance, Don Seidelmann (“Seidelmann”), concerning a deficit on the CLEX account. After some discussion over email, Kyle-Eiland and Seidelmann set up a meeting to further discuss the issue. Kyle-Eiland claims that Neff later cancelled that meeting; Neff claims that another OSU employee, Betsy Lindsay (“Lindsay”), canceled the meeting and that Neff only communicated that cancellation to Kyle-Eiland. Nonetheless, it is clear that Neff was displeased that Kyle-Eiland had contacted Seidelmann about the deficit, because Seidelmann did not work at CLEX and so was not in the “reporting line” for internal financial issues. Although no disciplinary action was taken on this issue, on January 4, 2007, Kyle-Eiland filed a charge with the OCRC, claiming retaliation in the form of discipline, harassment and hostile work environment, based on “constant -6- No. 09-3965 harassment [and] humiliation” from Neff.6 Kyle-Eiland cited the PIP, the cancellation of the Seidelmann meeting, and occasions when she claimed that she had been excluded from meetings as the factual basis of the charge. On January 23, 2007, Kyle-Eiland filed a charge with OCRC claiming retaliation in the form of demotion, harassment and hostile work environment, which outlined complaints that were similar to those listed in the previous charge.7 Kyle-Eiland also claimed that her communications were being monitored by Weber, Neff and Lindsay. During this time period, the College of Human Ecology and the College of Education merged. Kyle-Eiland alleges that during the merger her access to “approval” functions for purchasing was downgraded to access to “initiating” functions only, and that her access to human resources timekeeping systems was removed. She further claims that the funding structure of her position was changed—from university-funded to grant-based—which both increased her job insecurity and decreased her benefits package. Kyle-Eiland acknowledges that all other employees at CLEX were on grant-based funding. On May 8, 2007, Kyle-Eiland filed a charge with the OCRC, charging retaliation in the form of change of conditions of employment.8 By May of 2007, Neff had still seen no significant improvement in Kyle-Eiland’s performance. Neff therefore contacted the OSU Human Resources office (“OSU HR”) to began procedures to discharge Kyle-Eiland. In addition to continued problems with reporting, Neff cited 6 Kyle-Eiland received a right-to-sue letter for this charge from OCRC on June 16, 2008. 7 Kyle-Eiland received a right to sue letter for this charge from OCRC on June 16, 2008. 8 Kyle-Eiland did not receive a right to sue letter for this charge. -7- No. 09-3965 Kyle-Eiland’s failure to make timely payments to CLEX vendors and her failure to develop a key control system as instructed. After receiving approval from OSU HR, Neff provided Kyle-Eiland with a letter of termination on May 16, 2007, with an effective date of May 31, 2007. Kyle-Eiland left CLEX on the afternoon of May 16, 2007 and never returned to work. After Kyle-Eiland’s departure, CLEX did not re-hire for her position. Kyle-Eiland claims that she went to the offices of the OCRC to file a final retaliation charge on May 18, 2007, but OCRC has no record of a separate charge having been lodged at that time.