Additionally, the panel highlighted a 2019 written warning Flanagan received for failing to detect an assistant manager’s embezzlement of more than $75,000. Trader Joe’s attributed this oversight to her lack of “situational leadership.”
The judges rejected Flanagan’s claims that these reasons were pretexts for sex bias. While she argued that her supervisor had approved her vacation, the panel emphasized that the COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally altered the nature of her duties.
Flanagan pointed to a male regional vice president who also vacationed in March 2020 but was not terminated. However, the panel dismissed this comparison as irrelevant, noting that his domestic travel occurred before the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, and before Trader Joe’s issued its travel directive on March 13. Flanagan’s trip, by contrast, began after these critical dates.
Moreover, the male regional vice president had no prior performance warnings, unlike Flanagan. The court concluded that no reasonable factfinder could interpret the evidence as indicative of pretext or sex discrimination influencing Trader Joe’s decision.
