A Georgia deputy sheriff recently won a renewed opportunity to pursue his retaliation case after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the deputy’s employer. The employee’s success is a reminder that employees have multiple avenues for making out a retaliation or discrimination claim. If you have questions about federal retaliation or discrimination claims, be sure to contact an experienced Atlanta employment retaliation lawyer.
The deputy, A.I., began working for the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office in 2020. Shortly thereafter, the deputy started working a special assignment at a local park. One of the other officers assigned to the detail was E.J., a lieutenant and the commander of the SWAT team, which A.I. hoped to join.
According to the deputy and others, the lieutenant frequently made racist remarks related to the deputy’s ethnicity (Arabic) and national origin (Iraqi), including crude comments about terrorism, bombs, sand, and A.I.’s English language proficiency.
In 2021, the deputy filed an internal affairs complaint detailing the lieutenant’s harassment. Eight days later, the sheriff’s department fired the deputy.
Subsequently, the deputy filed a federal lawsuit alleging that he was fired in retaliation for the harassment complaint.
‘Convincing Mosaics’ and the Case of McDonnell Douglas v. Green
In a retaliation case like this one, the plaintiff may succeed in one of two ways: he may satisfy the elements of the test laid out in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case of McDonnell Douglas v. Green, or he may present evidence that, put together, makes a “convincing mosaic” of retaliation.
The McDonnell Douglas case presents a three-part burden-shifting framework. In it, the employee must first demonstrate a prima facie case, which means showing that he (1) was a member of a protected group; (2) was qualified for his job; (3) suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees outside of his protected group.
If the employee does this, the burden shifts to the employer to present a legitimate reason for its adverse employment action. After that, the burden shifts back to the employee to prove that the employer’s stated reason was merely a pretext for retaliation.
Alternatively, an employee can defeat an employer’s summary judgment motion if he has “circumstantial evidence that creates a triable issue” regarding the employer’s retaliatory intent, and the employee has a viable case if the evidence, “viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, presents a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer” a retaliatory motive by the employer.
In A.I.’s case, the trial judge concluded that the deputy had established a prima facie case of retaliation but failed to show pretext. As a result, the court granted summary judgment to the employer. This was incorrect, according to the appeals court. Although the court had completed all steps of the McDonnell Douglas framework, that alone was not enough to justify throwing out A.I.’s case. In doing so, the appeals court highlighted that an employee who falls short under the McDonnell Douglas framework “is entitled to a full review under the convincing mosaic standard,” and that the “convincing mosaic” standard is broader than the McDonnell Douglas framework.
As a result, the appeals court sent the case back for review under the “convincing mosaic” standard, giving the deputy a renewed opportunity to win his retaliation case.
If that all sounds complicated and technical, that is reasonable. This area of the law is marked by considerable nuance. That is why, whether you are an employer or an employee, you need to be sure you have skilled legal counsel on your side to handle your retaliation or discrimination case. If you have questions about retaliation or discrimination law, the experienced Atlanta employment retaliation attorneys at the law firm of Parks, Chesin & Walbert can help you sort out your matter. Contact us through this website or at 404-873-8048 to schedule a consultation today.