Monica Gray v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al.

Columbus, Ohio employmentlaw lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a wrongful termination theory.





Monica Gray helped a colleague secure an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The colleague's supervisor opposed the accommodation and, a few months later, reported Gray for timecard falsification. State Farm investigated the report and fired Gray. Gray then sued for retaliation under the ADA and Ohio law, claiming that the supervisor singled her out for conduct widespread in the agency because she had helped her colleague advocate for an accommodation. But the district court granted State Farm summary judgment, reasoning that the company had an honest belief that Gray had engaged in misconduct.



Monica Gray worked at State Farm for fifteen years until she was fired. At the time of

her termination, Gray was a claim specialist on a team managed by Chris Martin. Her friend,

Sonya Mauter, had also been with State Farm for many years. But she worked on a different

team managed by Joe Kyle.



Mauter had an ADA accommodation that exempted her from overtime work. In August

2017, Kyle told Mauter that State Farm would no longer accommodate her work schedule. He

placed Mauter on leave until she agreed to work overtime. And if she did not agree to overtime,

Kyle threatened, she could eventually be terminated. When Mauter asked to use her leave under

the Family and Medical Leave Act, Kyle said she had none left. Mauter later discovered that

was not true.



Mauter turned to Gray for help. Gray researched ADA law and State Farm policies,

contacted human resources for information, and even lodged an internal complaint against Kyle.

Gray coached Mauter on how to advocate for herself. She also advised Mauter to seek legal

1At this stage, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to Gray, the nonmoving party. King v.

Steward Trumbull Mem'l Hosp., Inc.No. 24-3086 Gray v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. Page 3

counsel and file an EEOC discrimination charge, which Mauter did. Throughout this process,



Mauter repeatedly informed Kyle that Gray was assisting her.

Meanwhile, Kyle intensified his scrutiny of Mauter. One time, he issued her a warning

for discussing accommodations with colleagues, threatening her with "action up to and including

termination.” Warning, R. 30-21, PageID 2101. Mauter's lawyer sent State Farm a letter

alleging that Kyle engaged in illegal retaliation. State Farm investigated Mauter's allegations

and agreed to transition her to another team.



In November 2017, Kyle substituted for Martin—the supervisor of Gray's team—while

Martin went on a short vacation. At the time, Martin took a relaxed approach to State Farm's

timecard policies. State Farm's written policy required employees to adhere closely to scheduled

shifts and allotted meal breaks. The policy also required employees to record time worked to the

minute. But Martin was not a stickler for those rules. He did not monitor or verify his

employees' timesheets, and at least some on his team rounded time rather than reporting it to the

minute.



Notwithstanding Martin's relaxed practice, Kyle pored over Gray's timesheets in

Martin's absence. He compared her time entries to her computer activity and noticed three

instances when she reported time while logged off her computer. Kyle raised the issue with his

and Martin's direct supervisor, Denise Hensley. And as required by company policy, Hensley

told Kyle to report the discrepancies to HR. Policy, R. 30-2, PageID 631 (requiring all

employees to "immediately” report timekeeping violations that they learn about). Kyle did so,

telling HR that Gray had manually adjusted her time to hide long lunches and early departures.

He incorrectly claimed that Gray had previously been coached for such behavior. And he

suggested that HR would find more discrepancies if it investigated Gray's records.



When Martin returned from vacation, Kyle met with him, Hensley, and Geri Keeling

from HR. Kyle shared the evidence that he had gathered on Gray, prompting Keeling to launch

an investigation. Keeling reviewed Gray's timesheets, computer activity, and building-entry

records. She found more errors, including seven instances when Gray reported returning from

lunch before she had reNo. 24-3086 Gray v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. Page 4

Keeling and Martin interviewed Gray about these discrepancies. This was the first time

Gray learned that she was being investigated. Gray denied any wrongdoing and insisted that

Kyle had targeted her for helping Mauter secure an accommodation. She also claimed that the

timing was suspicious, and she asked if State Farm was reviewing other employees' timesheets.

Keeling relayed Gray's allegation of retaliation to Hensley, but no one at State Farm pursued the

issue further.



A week later, Martin and Hensley recommended Gray's termination to upper

management. Gray did not know about the pending recommendation. In the meantime, she filed

a retaliation charge with the EEOC. A few days later, State Farm fired her for falsifying her

timesheets.



Gray sued Kyle and State Farm for retaliation under the ADA and its Ohio counterpart.

See 42 U.S.C. § 12203; Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02. She alleged that Kyle selectively reported

her for otherwise common behavior, prompting State Farm to investigate and ultimately fire her.

After discovery, the district court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment. The court

reasoned that State Farm held an "honest belief” that Gray falsified her time and fired her for that

reason. Op., R. 52, PageID 3743. It thus concluded that Gray could not show pretext, as

required for her retaliation claims.

Motion for summary judgment granted.



Reversed