A federal appeals court has reinstated a Cincinnati insurance job applicant’s lawsuit against the firm, based on her allegation the insurer rescinded its job offer after learning she had signed a petition supporting a neighborhood women’s shelter that the insurer opposed.

Gayle Linkletter had worked as an employee for Cincinnati-based Western & Southern Financial Group Inc. between 1997 and 2006, according to Thursday’s ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in Gayle Linkletter v. Western & Southern Financial Group Inc.; Kim Chiodi.

In May 2014, a former colleague at Western & Southern contacted her about a job opportunity, and she was offered, and accepted, a position at the company, according to the ruling.

In September 2014, before she began work, the company’s senior vice president for human resources, Ms. Chiodi, informed Ms. Linkletter the insurer was rescinding the employment offer. Ms. Linkletter claimed Ms. Chiodi justified the rescission because Ms. Linkletter had taken a “position contrary to Western & Southern,” and that she specifically mentioned Ms. Linkletter’s support for the Anna Louise Inn.  

The insurer had eventually reached a settlement of litigation over the shelter and purchased the property.

Ms. Linkletter filed suit against Western & Southern in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati, charging violation of the federal Fair Housing Act and state law. The District Court dismissed the case.

Ms. Linkletter appealed, claiming the defendants had interfered with her employment because she aided or encouraged women in the exercise of their housing rights.

A three-judge appeals court panel unanimously reinstated the Fair Housing Act claim. “The rescission of an employment contract can qualify as ‘interference’ within the meaning of the statute,” said the ruling. “The defendants’ interference left Linkletter with a distinct and palpable injury.”

“Linkletter’s action, signing a petition, is seemingly innocuous. However, the language and timing of the petition demonstrate that it existed to encourage women to remain in their residence in opposition to the alleged discrimination by Western & Southern,” the ruling said.

 “A factfinder could conclude that through the campaign against the shelter, Western & Southern interfered with housing rights … and that Linkletter encouraged those same rights,” said the ruling.

 “Accordingly, Linkletter states a plausible claim for relief under the Fair Housing Act and her claim should not have been dismissed,” said the ruling, which also reinstated the state claim and remanded the case for further proceedings.