Facts of the Case

Peggy Olson was a long-time employee of Motorcade Insurance Company, located in the company's flagship office in Manhattan, NY. She was hired by Motorcade in 2008, and was promoted in 2012 to the position of Subrogation Specialist II, which involved the pursuit of claims for reimbursement from third parties (i.e., tortfeasors who caused auto accident-related losses to Motorcades insureds). In 2019, encouraged by her supervisor, she applied for a promotion to a management position entitled Subrogation Specialist Lead or Team Lead. In this position, the successful candidate would be responsible for the subrogation function for the region encompassing Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa. Because Olson was already performing several of the responsibilities of the Team Lead position, and based on her supervisors comments, Olson believed she was the frontrunner for the position. In addition, on her most recent performance evaluation in 2018, she had received excellent reviews, scoring a 4.40 out of a possible 5.00 points.

There were two finalists for the Team Lead position, Olson, and another in-house candidate, Don Draper. While Olson had held the Subrogation Specialist II position for seven years, Draper had only been promoted to that position about a year earlier. In addition, Draper had scored lower than Olson, though satisfactorily, on his most recent performance review, receiving a 4.20 out of a possible 5.00 points.

Three managers formed the promotion committee who interviewed the two finalists: Betty Francis, who had previously supervised and worked closely with Olson; Rachel Katz, the Director of Subrogation; and Joan Holloway, Olsons immediate supervisor. Joan Holloway was the ultimate decisionmaker for the promotion, but she considered input from Francis and Katz in reaching her decision.

For about two years prior to the promotion decision, Olson had been taking one course per semester at night at local university. Also, at the time of the decision, she was the mother of seven-year-old triplets. Her husband, Mike, left a lucrative actuary position with another insurance company to stay home with the kids. On December 1, 2019, two months before the final decision, Mike made a surprise visit with the triplets to Olson's office. Olson was actually out of the office at a mediation to resolve a subrogation lawsuit, Mike met Holloway for the first time. This is when Holloway first learned that Olson had three seven-year-old children and that her husband was an actuary but stayed home with the kids. Holloway sent an email to Olson stating, Your husband just stopped by. Wow, I did not know you had triplets. Bless you! They are so cute!

There is no evidence or any assertion that Olsons work performance was impacted by any childcare responsibilities she may have had.

During Olsons final interview with Francis, her former supervisor, she was asked how she would respond if an associate did not complete a project on time. After hearing Olsons response, Francis indicated that she thought Olson "might be too compassionate to be strong." Francis continued, Peggy, your approach may be too maternal. But remember, even as a mom, you cant just let your kids get away with everything. Youre going need to man up to run this team.

Draper's interviews with the promotion committee went well. Based on her own perceptions, and those of Francis and Katz, Holloway gave Draper's interview an overall higher score than Olsons by three points on a 50-point scale. On February 1, 2020, Holloway offered the promotion to Draper over Olson. When Holloway informed Olson that she didnt get the promotion, Holloway explained:

Don had a higher interview score. Also, you are going to school, you have the triplets. You just have a lot on your plate right now. If any of us on the interview panel were in your position, we would feel overwhelmed. Plus, I'm sure your husband wants to get back to work. After all, your family would make more money on an actuary's salary. And as you know, it's usually pretty hard to find replacements for this position. Don is single and doesn't have the same types of distractions that you do. We just don't want to risk having to go through the time, costs of replacement, and other disruptions in the workplace in the event your husband goes back to work and you decide to be in charge of childcare. I know that this isn't what you were hoping for, but please remember that we love you--it's just a business decision.

Olson was frustrated by Holloway's decision and thought it seemed like some sort of sex discrimination. So, on February 15, she approached Katz and told her, "I think that Joan's decision to promote Don instead of me was discriminatory. I think should talk to HR about this." Katz responded, "That's silly, Peggy. We love you. Don't make a mountain of a molehill. Obviously, you are a strong and determined woman. I am, too, so I get it. But, you really don't want this job, anyway. I think what you really want is something that is more flexible...y'know...for your family." Still upset, Olson went to HR after the discussion and reported that he was being discriminated against.

After the report to HR, Olson didn't hear much, and she continued to work like she normally did. Around February 20, Olson's caseload started increasing heavily, and by the end of the month, she was having a hard time keeping up. On March 5, Holloway conducted a performance review, giving her a 3.00 of a possible 5.00 points. The feedback on the review was sparse, stating only that "Peggy's performance needs improvement. She hasn't been a team player lately and has failed to keep up with her caseload." Her workload continued to increase and her request to Holloway for some administrative support was denied. On March 15, Olson received an email from Katz, stating: "Hi Peggy. I hope you're doing great! As you know, you've been having trouble managing your workload, so your performance is suffering. But, we have an opportunity in our cute little Ossining branch." Peggy replied, "You can't be serious. Ossining is an hour north of here. And that's just an agency office. We only keep two people in that office, and they're just agents who sell auto insurance policies. I've never written policies before." Katz responded, "Well, this is what we think is in everyone's best interests. You're expected to report to the Ossining office on March 30. You can take the next two weeks off to get ready."

Olson believes that Motorcade discriminated against her and committed retaliation.

Prompt

Discuss whether Motorcade violated Title VII through (I) discriminatory conduct and (II) retaliation. For Part I, you must base your discussion of the rule (and thus, your subsequent analysis) on the assigned article by the Cross Law Firm, Disparate Treatment: Who has the burden of proof? For Part II, you must base your discussion of the rule (and thus, your subsequent analysis) on the assigned article by LIsa Guerin, Retaliation in the Workplace: How to Prove it.

1. Conclusion: Begins response with a concise, clear, and reasonable assertion that directly addresses and incorporates the issue that the problem presents. (Usually, one sentence should suffice.)

2. Rule (Rule of Law): Explains the rule(s) of law applicable to the issue(s) arising from the facts. Teaches the reader the legal rules that are required to address the problem. In other words, the response explains the relevant law (legal rule) and breaks it down into the proper elements and/or factors as necessary. When appropriate and in the proper context, highly distinctive responses may include references to cases and/or statutes that may have been examined in the assigned study materials.

3. Analysis: Applies the rule to the facts: Articulates the supporting reasoning for the conclusion by applying/linking the rule (and each element and/or factor in the rule) to the relevant facts. Highly distinctive responses may further support reasoning through comparisons to analogous issues in cases (precedent) that may have been examined in the assigned study materials.