Felicia A. Wilcox v. Corrections Corporation of America, 603 F. App'x 862

Felicia Wilcox, an African-American corrections officer at McRae (2004–2010), alleged that her direct supervisor sexually harassed her beginning after her husband (also an employee) was fired in Dec. 2008.
Wilcox reported daily unwanted touching (hugging, caressing down her back), attempted thigh/buttocks contact, and sexually explicit comments; the supervisor was fired in Sept. 2009 after other employees made harassment allegations.
Wilcox made multiple internal complaints of racial discrimination and retaliation; several investigations by CCA found no substantiation for some complaints.
Wilcox submitted an unverified EEOC Intake Questionnaire on Dec. 13, 2009; a verified Charge of Discrimination was filed Mar. 15, 2010. EEOC treated the Intake Questionnaire as a charge and issued notice to CCA.
CCA terminated Wilcox in July 2010, citing a pattern of repeated unfounded/exaggerated complaints.
District court granted summary judgment to CCA on both (1) sexual-harassment (not severe/pervasive) and (2) retaliation (Wilcox failed to show pretext). Eleventh Circuit reversed on the harassment claim and affirmed on retaliation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether supervisor’s conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to state a Title VII hostile-work-environment claim	Wilcox: daily unwanted touching, sexual comments, humiliation and interference with work established both subjective and objective severity/pervasiveness	CCA: conduct was not severe or pervasive enough as a matter of law to alter terms/conditions of employment	Reversed district court: evidence (daily unwanted contact, sexual comments, interference) permits a jury to find harassment severe or pervasive
Whether Wilcox’s termination was retaliatory (and whether she timely exhausted EEOC remedies) / whether CCA’s proffered reason was pretextual	Wilcox: she was fired for complaining about race and sex harassment; termination was retaliatory	CCA: terminated for legitimate, non-discriminatory reason — pattern of false/exaggerated complaints; Intake Questionnaire was unverified but later related back	Affirmed district court: EEOC charge related back so timeliness not barred; but Wilcox failed to rebut CCA’s stated non-discriminatory reason, so no genuine issue of pretext — summary judgment for CCA on retaliation claim

Holloman v. Mail-Well Corp., 443 F.3d 832 (11th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for summary judgment in employment cases)
Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 1999) (elements of hostile work environment under Title VII)
Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 594 F.3d 798 (11th Cir. 2010) (hostile-work-environment element list and framework)
Hulsey v. Pride Rests., LLC, 367 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2004) (factors for objective severity/pervasiveness)
Johnson v. Booker T. Washington Broad. Serv., Inc., 234 F.3d 501 (11th Cir. 2000) (objective/subjective severity standard)
Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2002) (examples of conduct found sufficiently severe/pervasive)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination/retaliation claims)
EEOC v. Total Sys. Servs., Inc., 221 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2000) (employers may fire employees for lying in internal investigations)
Edelman v. Lynchburg Coll., 535 U.S. 106 (U.S. 2002) (relating back verified charge to an earlier unverified communication under EEOC practice)