No Retaliation Found in Termination of Cordell & Cordell Paralegal

Cranmer V. Cordell & Cordell P.C.

Case Background

On April 21, 2023, Tammy Cranmer filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the law firm Cordell & Cordell P.C. She claimed that her termination was based on retaliation and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (Act) and Kansas Act Against Discrimination. The case was filed in the United States District Court, Kansas (Wichita). District Judge Toby Crouse presided over the case. [Case number: 6:23cv1066]

Cause

Tammy Cranmer worked as a paralegal at Cordell & Cordell P.C., a Missouri-based professional corporation operating in Kansas. Cranmer was hired as a senior paralegal when the firm opened its Wichita office in the fall of 2019. Initially, she and attorney Bradley Ward were the only staff, but they expanded the office to seven attorneys. Cranmer was terminated on July 25, 2022. At the time of her dismissal, Cranmer earned an annual salary of $65,000. Cordell & Cordell, led by Joe Cordell, was described as "the largest divorce litigation law firm in the world," with offices in multiple countries, including the UK. The firm, known for representing both men and women in divorce cases, had its headquarters in St. Louis and several U.S. offices, including Wichita. By the time of Cranmer's termination, the Wichita office employed five attorneys. Cranmer’s supervisor was Kimberly Gray, an attorney in the Kansas City office. Throughout her employment, Cranmer received positive performance reviews. However, in spring 2020, she experienced and witnessed sexual harassment by a fellow attorney, which she reported in November 2021. Following an investigation, the firm terminated the offending attorney. Afterward, Cranmer believed she faced retaliation from Gray, including poor evaluations and ignored emails. In March 2022, Cranmer sought legal advice, and her attorney sent Cordell a letter seeking damages and an apology. Cordell denied retaliation, but Gray’s behavior improved temporarily. In May 2022, Cranmer participated in a mediation with Gray. There were no issues with Cranmer's performance. Cranmer was diagnosed with kidney failure in June 2022, requiring medical leave. Despite this, she continued to meet her job duties but was fired two months later on July 25, 2022, without prior warnings. The termination cited a failure to adhere to the commitments made during mediation.

Damages

Her termination, just one month after reporting her diagnosis, shocked her. It occurred while she was already struggling with a serious health issue. Cranmer suffered lost wages, emotional distress, and embarrassment due to her firing. The Defendant caused a breakdown in the process that would have reasonably accommodated Cranmer’s disability. She requested the following relief from the Court:

Compensatory damages for mental and physical injuries caused by retaliation, under Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C.A. Section 1981, or Title VII.
Punitive damages for the malicious and reckless indifference described in the complaint.
Reasonable attorney fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems appropriate.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Tammy Cranmer
- Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Benjamin K. Carmichael | Diane H. Sorensen

Defendant(s): Cordell & Cordell P.C.
- Counsel for Defendant(s): Kathryn J. Starrett Rickley | Mitchell E. Wood

Claims

Count I: Retaliation Under Title VII for Reporting Sexual Harassment Cranmer reported sexual harassment to her supervisor, and Cordell investigated the matter. The attorney responsible for the harassment was terminated. However, Cranmer's treatment worsened after her report, and she faced complaints and harassment. She was ultimately terminated due to her report of sexual harassment. Count II: Americans with Disabilities Act – Failure to Accommodate Cranmer, a disabled person, was discriminated against by Cordell because of her kidney failure. She met the criteria under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including:

Cranmer had a disability under the statute.
Her kidney failure significantly limited her ability to perform major life activities, such as bodily function.
She had a record of the impairment, as she was diagnosed with kidney failure.
Cordell knew about her disability after she disclosed it to her supervisor.
Cranmer was qualified to perform the essential functions of several positions, with or without accommodation, before her termination.
Cordell failed to engage in discussions to provide reasonable accommodations and fired her because of her disability.

Count III: ADA – Disparate Treatment Cordell discriminated against Cranmer because of her disability, kidney failure. Cranmer was qualified for several open positions with or without accommodation before her termination. She suffered an adverse employment action due to her disability. Count IV: ADA – Retaliation Cordell retaliated against Cranmer because of her disability. Cranmer disclosed her kidney failure and was terminated within a month. She faced adverse employment action after seeking reasonable accommodations and medical care for her disability. Count V: Violations of the Kansas Act Against Discrimination (KAAD) Cordell discriminated against Cranmer by terminating her after she disclosed her disability. She was fired because of her kidney failure.

Defense

Defendant denied all allegations not specifically admitted and argued Plaintiff was not entitled to relief. Defendant acted reasonably, and its actions were justified, based on lawful business reasons. Plaintiff’s claims were barred in whole or part due to Defendant's compliance with relevant laws and regulations. Defendant also denied any wrongful conduct and asserted Plaintiff's claims failed to state a valid cause of action. Claims were further barred by the doctrines of unclean hands, waiver, unjust enrichment, and estoppel. Additionally, any breach of contract or mediation agreements by Plaintiff barred the claims. Defendant argued Plaintiff did not suffer the damages claimed, and any potential recovery should be reduced for failure to mitigate damages. Plaintiff was not entitled to punitive damages, as there was no evidence of malicious or negligent conduct. Plaintiff’s claims under the ADA and Title VII were barred as Plaintiff could not establish the necessary facts. Plaintiff also failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Defendant reserved the right to assert additional defenses, including after-acquired evidence.

Jury Verdict

On October 07, 2024, the jury returned a defense verdict after finding that Defendant Cordell had not terminated Plaintiff in retaliation for her protected activity. On the same date, a judgment consistent with the verdict was entered and the case was dismissed.

Court Documents:

Available upon request

Defense Verdict for Cordell & Cordell P.C. as Jury Finds No Retaliation in Paralegal’s Termination