Anthony Booth v. Pasco County, Florida
757 F.3d 1198
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Booth and Brown, Pasco County emergency services employees and Union members, filed internal grievances and later EEOC/FCHR charges alleging discrimination and retaliation; coworkers who supported them were reassigned and Plaintiffs alleged ostracism.
- Union President emailed a memorandum to bargaining-unit members naming Booth and Brown, calling the EEOC charges frivolous, warning of defense costs and possible dues assessments; the memo was posted at stations and allegedly provoked coworker harassment.
- Plaintiffs sued County and Union for retaliation under Title VII and Florida law; a jury found both defendants liable (County: forced fitness-for-duty exams; Union: naming Plaintiffs and editorializing), awarding compensatory and punitive damages against the Union.
- The district court granted judgment as a matter of law for the County (concluding insufficient evidence of retaliatory motive) but denied Union post-trial relief; Plaintiffs and Union appealed and Plaintiffs cross-appealed for equitable relief.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the entry of judgment for the County (holding reasonable jurors could find but-for retaliation) and affirmed the judgment against the Union, rejecting the Union’s First Amendment defense; it denied equitable relief to Plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether County ordering fitness-for-duty exams was unlawful retaliation (but-for causation under Title VII) | Plaintiffs: affidavits and facts show exams were motivated by retaliation for protected grievances/charges | County: exams were legitimate safety measures prompted by Plaintiffs’ affidavits and concerns about public safety | Reversed district court; jury could reasonably find but-for retaliatory motive and judgment for County reinstated |
| Adequacy of jury instructions re: employer liability for coworker harassment | Plaintiffs: court should instruct County liable if it knew/should have known and failed to remediate | County: instruction unnecessary; Plaintiffs did not pursue hostile-environment theory | Court did not abuse discretion—existing instructions covered substance; no prejudice shown |
| Whether adverse-action materiality should be judged cumulatively | Plaintiffs: jury should be told discrete acts may be aggregated to constitute materially adverse action | County: no objection at trial to wording but argued no prejudicial error | Denied reversible error; court allowed counsel to argue cumulative effect in closing; no prejudice found |
| Whether Union’s memo is protected speech under the First Amendment | Union: memo was private/organizational speech; content-based regulation violates its free-speech and associational rights | Plaintiffs: memo was a call for reprisal and threat that foreseeably provoked harassment and is not protected (private concern) | Affirmed—Union’s First Amendment defense rejected: memo viewed as call for reprisal, involved private concern, and government interest in preventing workplace discrimination justified liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (but-for causation requirement for Title VII retaliation)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (court may infer discrimination from discrediting employer’s explanation)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (purpose of anti-retaliation provisions to prevent interference with enforcement of anti-discrimination laws)
- NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (threats/coercive statements not protected when they are misrepresentations or threats of retaliation)
- Connick v. Meyers, 461 U.S. 138 (public vs. private concern test for speech protection)
- Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (public/private concern significance in First Amendment tort defenses)
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (when a statute regulating conduct is treated as content-based speech restriction)
- United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (speech incidental to unlawful conduct may be regulated)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (employer liability defenses for supervisory harassment)
- Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (employer affirmative defenses for harassment)
- Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (deference to jury credibility findings in constitutional-fact context)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for weighing evidence in jury trials)