A federal appeals court, in a divided opinion, has reinstated a retaliation charge filed by a former grain facilities worker who was terminated shortly after she complained about not receiving bonuses because she was a woman.

North Little Rock, Arkansas-based Oakley Grain Inc., a subsidiary of Bruce Oakley Inc., which operates grain facilities in Missouri and Arkansas, hired Shana D. Donathan in August 2010 to work in its Arkansas City, Arkansas, facility, according to Wednesday’s ruling by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis in Shana D. Donathan v. Oakley Grain Inc.; Bruce Oakley Inc.; Dennis Oakley.

While her initial duties included various tasks, primarily answering phones and weighing and grading grain, they were expanded shortly after she was hired to include payroll functions. While she worked primarily indoors, she occasionally worked outdoors around grain elevators or barges, according to the ruling.

In 2014, after learning from her brother, an Oakley Grain employee, that other workers received “harvest and safety bonuses,” she sent an email to the company president complaining she had not received the bonuses given to outdoor workers, suggesting it was because she is female.

She was one of five workers laid off eight days later on Jan. 31, a Friday. Three of these workers, who were temporary, were rehired the following Monday, while the company had performance concerns about the fourth. The company also hired a replacement for Ms. Donathan with less experience.

Ms. Donathan filed suit, charging defendants with discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act.

The U.S. District Court in Little Rock, Arkansas, granted the company summary judgement dismissing both charges. Ms. Donathan appealed only the retaliation charge.

The appeals court reinstated her retaliation charge in a 2-1 ruling. The majority opinion said Ms. Donathan “was terminated from her office position even though Oakley Grain had not included the office position in its seasonal layoffs in any of the prior three years Ms. Donathan had worked for the company (or during the years when Donathan’s predecessor held the post).

“Donathan’s termination occurred despite the absence of negative reviews, and Oakley Grain hired (her replacement) to fill the position the very next working day,” said the ruling.

“In addition, temporal proximity serves as further and strong evidence of causation in the context of the present case,” the majority opinion said.

The minority ruling said, “stripped of speculative references, the majority opinion is a victory for inferring retaliatory intent from temporal proximity.”

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court reinstated a retaliation claim filed by a worker who was terminated after he complained to a state agency about being asked to fudge product quality test results.