Ebonie Batson v. The Salvation Army
897 F.3d 1320
11th Cir.2018Background
- Ebonie Batson worked at The Salvation Army (TSA) for over a decade with consistently strong performance reviews and promotions; she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in January 2010 and informed her employer.
- Batson requested accommodations via an ADA questionnaire (adjusted travel schedule, occasional telecommuting) and took intermittent FMLA leave beginning January–March 2013; meetings about accommodation were repeatedly rescheduled and never held.
- TSA eliminated Batson’s Audit Manager position after a departmental restructuring and posted the Senior Auditor job (her prior position); TSA required her to apply and interview despite internal emails suggesting she could be transferred without posting.
- During the interview Batson was asked multiple questions about doctor appointments and ability to travel; interviewers described her as "combative" while Batson said she felt interrogated about her medical condition.
- TSA refused to hire Batson for the Senior Auditor position, citing poor interview conduct and performance issues; Batson filed EEOC charge asserting denial of accommodation and alleged termination on June 4, 2013.
- The district court granted summary judgment to TSA on all claims; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the ADA failure-to-accommodate claim but reversed as to ADA and FMLA retaliation and FMLA interference, remanding for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA failure to accommodate | Batson argued TSA refused reasonable accommodations (adjust travel, telecommute) after her request. | TSA asserted Batson was never actually denied a specific accommodation and received requested schedule adjustments. | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for TSA—no evidence Batson needed and was denied a specific accommodation. |
| ADA retaliation (exhaustion) | Batson contended her EEOC charge (denial of accommodation + termination date) was sufficient to exhaust a retaliation claim. | TSA argued the charge did not allege retaliation and thus was not exhausted. | Court: Reversed district court—Charge was related enough to the retaliation claim to satisfy exhaustion. |
| ADA & FMLA retaliation (merits, pretext) | Batson argued TSA’s reasons for not rehiring were pretextual (emails showing pre-interview bias, questions about health, strong prior reviews). | TSA defended by citing poor interview performance and prior performance issues as legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. | Court: Reversed summary judgment—sufficient evidence of pretext (e.g., pre-interview emails, questionings about health, conflicting testimony) to send retaliation claims to jury. |
| FMLA interference (restoration) | Batson argued TSA interfered with her right to be restored to a position after FMLA leave; termination was the denial of that right. | TSA argued it would have eliminated/terminated her regardless of FMLA leave. | Court: Reversed summary judgment—because pretext evidence undermines TSA’s asserted nondiscriminatory reasons, factual dispute remains for jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kragor v. Takeda Pharms. Am., Inc., 702 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2012) (summary-judgment evidence viewed in favor of the nonmoving party)
- Hurlbert v. St. Mary’s Health Care Sys., Inc., 439 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for summary judgment in employment cases)
- Holly v. Clairson Indus., L.L.C., 492 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007) (elements of an ADA employment discrimination claim)
- Earl v. Mervyns, Inc., 207 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2000) (employer obligated to accommodate unless undue hardship)
- Maynard v. Pneumatic Prods. Corp., 256 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2001) (EEOC charge exhaustion requirement for discrimination claims)
- Gregory v. Ga. Dept. of Human Res., 355 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2004) (EEOC charge scope construed liberally; related claims may be exhausted)
- Martin v. Brevard Cty. Pub. Sch., 543 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2008) (FMLA reinstatement and burden-shifting analysis)
- Standard v. A.B.E.L. Servs., Inc., 161 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 1998) (McDonnell Douglas framework in ADA cases)
- Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519 (11th Cir. 1997) (pretext standard at summary judgment)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (ADA contains an express anti-retaliation provision)
- Strickland v. Water Works & Sewer Bd. of City of Birmingham, 239 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2001) (distinguishing FMLA interference and retaliation standards)