Inside Education Technology Company IXL Learning's Trial Victory Against the EEOC
“I had to make sure the jury understood what the EEOC was alleging, and what they were not alleging,” a defense lawyer for IXL Learning says.
November 20, 2018 at 02:10 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Adrian Scott Duane posted a complaint on Glassdoor.com about his company IXL Learning days before he was fired. “If you're not a family-oriented white or Asian straight or mainstream gay person with 1.7 kids who really likes softball—then you're likely to find yourself on the outside,” Duane wrote.
The transgender mathematician said managers at the education technology company “do not know what the word 'discrimination' means, nor do they seem to think it matters.”
The company acknowledged Duane, who had recently complained he was treated differently because of his gender identity, was fired over his negative post on the job-review site. This complaint was at the root of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity commission's retaliation lawsuit against the San Mateo, California, company.
What might have seemed like an easy win for the EEOC was anything but. A jury recently sided with IXL in California federal district court.
Jeffrey Wilson, a Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane shareholder in Michigan who represented IXL in court, said the facts of Duane's case provided a steep hill for the defense. The EEOC doesn't often lose at trial, and the venue was progressive San Francisco.
“I read some of the headlines on our case, and I even thought, 'How did the jury find for the company here?' This is someone who went on a two-month gender confirmation surgery leave. He comes back and complains about discrimination, he's then fired two days later after the complaint. They admit they fired him for the post. How did that possibly result in a verdict for the company?” Wilson said in an interview.
Wilson said the defense carefully focused arguments from the start of the case, to settlement discussions and eventually at trial. “I had to make sure the jury understood what the EEOC was alleging, and what they were not alleging,” Wilson said.
Duane's attorney, David Marek, did not respond to requests for comment. Duane did not respond to an email sent to his personal address. EEOC lawyers said Tuesday in a court filing they are still mulling whether to pursue a request for a new trial or to appeal the jury's verdict.
Duane, according to the EEOC, said he believed the company was unwelcome to those “who do not fit into neat categories of gender identity, orientation, and expression.” The lawsuit said employees asked Duane inappropriate questions about his gender identity and orientation. The complaint also claimed Duane was treated differently when he asked for accommodations to work remotely.
Most of the EEOC's claims are resolved through settlements and other agreements that are filed before any lawsuit is brought. The agency's attempt to settle claims against IXL failed, and the agency filed suit in May 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The EEOC boasts a high success rate of success in lawsuits filed in court and rarely takes cases to trial. The agency achieved what it called a “successful outcome” in more than 90 percent of its cases last year, according to a report in January.
➤➤ Get employment law news and commentary straight to your in-box with Labor of Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
Duane's post on Glassdoor featured prominently in the agency's news release announcing the lawsuit. “While the platforms for employees to speak out against discrimination are evolving with technology, the laws against retaliation remain constant,” EEOC trial attorney Ami Sanghvi said in a statement then. Retaliation claims are the leading complaints filed at the EEOC, making up 45 percent of filings.
Wilson and IXL, a leading national provider of online educational services, argued management had no knowledge that Duane was transgender, only that he presented as a gay man. The company stressed it valued training and oversight.
In a discrimination case, the plaintiffs need to prove some motive or pretext in an adverse action. Retaliation is simpler, and the company's admission that it fired Duane for his Glassdoor post posed hurdles for the defense.
Jury selection gave insight into Wilson's strategy. Two of the eight jurors had close relatives, including a child, who were transgender. Wilson said he welcomed those jurors and felt they were likely to recognize what he described as genuine claims of retaliation.
The defense brought in executives and company employees to discuss workplace culture and what IXL does day to day. Wilson said the defense arguments centered around the company's accommodations of Duane's requests.
The company earlier fought—and won—against Duane's claims at the National Labor Relations Board. An administrative law judge in 2016 ruled for the company, concluding Duane's Glassdoor review was “individual gripes posted to hurt [IXL's] ability to recruit prospective employees” that constituted a “reckless and impetuous reaction to [IXL's] hesitation to immediately accepting Duane's regular fifty percent remote work privilege.”
Alexander Batoff, an associate in Philadelphia at Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, warned in a blog post that Duane's loss at trial should not make employers “declare victory in the Glassdoor Wars.”
“The issue of whether a challenged employment decision is discriminatory or retaliation is often highly circumstantial, and there is nothing stopping a future jury presented with similar (or even identical) facts from reaching the opposite conclusion,” Batoff wrote. “Nor does this case imply that transgender persons (with or without disabilities) can no longer succeed against employers on claims of unlawful discrimination or retaliation.”
Batoff said employers should take heed that the EEOC continues to push for transgender worker equality, despite the Trump administration's moves against gender identity protections in court.
“Employers should stay tuned as these areas of the law continue to develop—not just with respect to transgender persons and critical online postings, but employees of all protected categories utilizing any mode of communication to voice workplace grievances,” Batoff said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTravis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readLegal Speak's 'Sidebar with Saul' Part IV: Deliberations Begin in First Trump Criminal Trial
1 minute readJosh Partington of Snell & Wilmer Is in Fact a Rock Star in the Office (and Out of It)
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
- 2Sweet James Clinches $17.4M Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California's Kings County
- 3In Lame-Duck Session, US Senate Confirms Illinois Federal Judge on Bipartisan Vote
- 4Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 5The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250