Dixon v. the Hallmark Companies, Inc.
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25190
| 11th Cir. | 2010Background
- Dixon couple worked as on-site manager and maintenance at Thornwood Terrace, owned by Hallmark Management, with rent-free apartment in exchange for duties.
- Dixon policy objections: Hallmark prohibited displaying religious items in management office, causing religious conflicts.
- Thornwood is USDA-rural development-assisted, subject to inspections; supervisor Saunders flagged a wall display containing a Bible verse.
- Dixon artwork displaying Matthew 6:28 was removed following Saunders' concern about FHA compliance; Dixons were subsequently fired for insubordination.
- District court granted summary judgment for Hallmark on Title VII intentional discrimination and failure-to-accommodate and on FHA claims; Dixons appeal.
- Court remands for factual development on the failure-to-accommodate claim while affirming in part on other Title VII and FHA issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct evidence of discrimination by remarks | Dixon shows Saunders’s 'You're fired, too. You're too religious' as direct evidence | Hallmark argues context negates direct discrimination | Direct evidence exists; summary judgment on intentional discrimination vacated |
| Failure to accommodate sincerely held beliefs | Dixons showed sincere beliefs and notice to Hallmark; firing violated accommodation duties | Genuine issues of first-prong sincerity and second-prong notice exist; district court erred in ruling | Remanded for factual development on prima facie case and accommodation balance |
| Retaliation for opposing unlawful practice | Removal of artwork and firing was in retaliation for opposition to display ban | No reasonable, objective basis for unlawful-practice belief; no retaliation proven | Summary judgment proper on retaliation claim; need for factual record to evaluate objective reasonableness |
| FHA retaliation/housing discrimination claims viability | Housing-claim under FHA sections 3604(b) and 3617 possible due to eviction tied to religious display | No protected right under 3604(b) to display religious items; 3606 not applicable to termination | 3604(b) claim rejected; 3606 claim rejected; affirmed on FHA grounds in part; remanded otherwise |
Key Cases Cited
- Earley v. Champion Int'l Corp., 907 F.2d 1077 (11th Cir. 1990) (direct evidence by discriminatory remark recognized)
- Castle v. Sangamo Weston Inc., 837 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1988) (brief remark can be direct evidence of discrimination)
- Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard for direct evidence and discrimination analysis)
- Beadle v. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Dep't, 29 F.3d 589 (11th Cir. 1994) (accommodation and undue hardship considerations in Title VII)