Jackson v. Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc., 8:10-cv-01483

Background

This 42 U.S.C. § 1981 race discrimination suit concerns three Black Checkers crew members terminated in 2009 at the Davis Highway store in Pensacola, Florida.
Plaintiffs allege discrimination by white general managers Jones and Forman, with Jones as district manager overseeing store operations.
The store used a purportedly racialized termination pattern, including a claimed list to fire Blacks and acceptance of White employees in managerial shifts.
Plaintiffs’ termination events: Jackson fired July 2009 for alleged no-call/no-show; Chaplin fired March 24, 2009 for grill incident; Brown terminated September 16, 2009 for job abandonment, with white replacement afterward.
Plaintiffs concede no direct evidence of discrimination; they rely on circumstantial evidence under the McDonnell Douglas framework.
The court denied all three summary-judgment motions, finding triable issues as to discriminatory intent and pretext.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs can survive summary judgment as to prima facie discrimination.	Jackson, Chaplin, Brown show protected class, qualification, and adverse action with nondiscriminatory explanations pretext.	Plaintiffs lack perfect comparators and some show questionable qualification; no direct evidence; McDonnell Douglas framework requires prima facie elements plus legitimate reason and pretext.	Summary judgment denied; triable issues exist.
Whether defendant’s reasons for termination were legitimate and non-discriminatory.	Reasons appear pretextual and tied to discriminatory motives (hit list; steer toward white hiring).	Terminations for performance/discipline with documented incidents; no race-based rationale shown.	Summary judgment denied; record supports possible legitimate reasons but also potential pretext.
Whether the evidence supports an inference of pretext and discriminatory intent.	Circumstantial evidence demonstrates a pattern of harsher treatment of Black employees and management bias.	Evidence does not conclusively prove discriminatory intent; jury should evaluate credibility.	Summary judgment denied; triable issues regarding pretext remain.
Whether punitive damages should be addressed at trial given policy considerations.	Record indicates discriminatory conduct; punitive damages possible.	Policies in place and compliance reduce punitive exposure; trial development needed.	Addressed at trial; not precluded here.
Whether compensatory damages should be reserved for trial.	Causation and intent issues require full record development.	Damages are not appropriate for summary judgment resolution.	Remains for trial.

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes the three-step burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (pretext framework after established prima facie case)
Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555 (11th Cir. 1997) (consistent standard for prima facie case and pretext in Title VII cases)
Brockman v. Avaya, Inc., 545 F.Supp.2d 1248 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (qualification evidence can be inferred from prior work history and objective factors)
Kolstad v. American Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1999) (employer good-faith compliance evidence relevant to punitive damages)
EEOC v. Joe’s Stone Crabs, Inc., 296 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2002) (emphasizes production versus proof in discrimination cases)