Flippo v. American Power Source, Inc., 20 F. Supp. 3d 1299

Plaintiff Sabrina Flippo worked as a bundler for APS in Alabama (2008–2011) under Arruda, the Spreader/Bundler Supervisor; plant manager was Bonnie Taylor.
Plaintiff alleged Title VII claims: Count One sexually hostile environment, Count Two sex discrimination, and Count Four retaliation; also state-law claims in Count Three (negligent hiring/training/retention), Five (invasion of privacy), Six (assault and battery), Seven (outrage) against Arruda (and APS for some counts).
Magistrate Judge Davis recommended grant of summary judgment for Defendants on Counts 1, 2, and 4 with prejudice and dismissal without prejudice of Counts 3, 5, 6, 7 under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); District Court adopted and accepted these recommendations.
Flippo testified to a consensual relationship with Arruda (2008–2009); after breakup Arruda allegedly made repeated but sporadic sexual comments (including Viagra references) and some unfriendly conduct, but court found not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment.
Taylor investigated complaints and eventually terminated Flippo for insubordination (going directly to a cutter without via Arruda/Taylor); court viewed termination as improper under Title VII analysis and concluded no evidence of gender discrimination or protected retaliation, leading to dismissal of Counts 1, 2, 4 and decline of supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a prima facie hostile environment exists under Title VII	Flippo asserts Arruda’s conduct was sexual and pervasive.	Conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to alter terms of employment.	No hostile environment; Count One granted.
Whether Flippo establishes sex discrimination under Title VII	Discrimination in training/promotion/pay based on sex.	No evidence of sex-based discrimination; harassment theory addressed by Count One.	No discrimination; Count Two granted.
Whether Flippo proves retaliation under Title VII	Termination linked to protected activity (complaints about harassment).	Temporal proximity and causal link lacking; termination for insubordination.	No retaliation; Count Four granted.
Whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims	State claims should proceed alongside federal claims.	Original jurisdiction over federal claim dismissed; discretion under §1367(c) applies.	Decline jurisdiction; Counts 3, 5, 6, 7 dismissed without prejudice.
Whether state-law claims should be heard in federal court or state court	State-law claims belong in federal court under supplemental jurisdiction.	Best resolved in Alabama state court; diversity/jurisdiction unclear.	Dismissed without prejudice; state-law claims may be refiled in state court.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for discrimination proof; burden-shifting analysis)
Burdine v. Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affairs, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (establishing prima facie case and pretext framework)
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (U.S. 1978) (prima facie discrimination framework; non-discriminatory reasons)
Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 1999) (hostile environment elements and objective/subjective test)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (duty to maintain a non-hostile work environment; severe or pervasive standard)
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (same-sex harassment guidance in harassment analysis)
U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1983) (binding standard for discrimination analysis and burden shifting)
Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555 (11th Cir. 1997) (similarly situated analysis for prima facie case)