James v. Community Eldercare Services, LLC
1:16-cv-00038
| N.D. Miss. | Aug 30, 2017Background
- Tarjilyn James, an African-American LPN and Medical Records Nurse at Plaza Community Living Center, was suspended in Sept. 2015 after reporting coworkers for alleged misconduct and later terminated in Oct. 2015 after filing a grievance alleging retaliation.
- James reported (1) that Assistant Director of Nursing Kelly Adamson backdated records and forged a doctor’s signature, and (2) that LPN Rachel Gibson verbally abused a resident and mishandled medication; investigations produced conflicting findings and Adamson was not disciplined.
- Plaza issued James a final written warning for allegedly conducting her own investigations and failing to follow the chain of command; Plaza contends James lacked authority to discipline peers under the updated chain of command.
- James filed an EEOC charge, received a right-to-sue, and sued under Title VII (race discrimination), McArn wrongful-termination (public-policy) claim for reporting illegal acts, and several state tort claims (negligence, emotional distress, outrage, negligent supervision/retention).
- Plaza moved for summary judgment on all claims; the court denied summary judgment because genuine disputes of material fact exist—particularly causation/pretext—making credibility determinations necessary and the case appropriate for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| McArn wrongful-termination (public-policy) — whether firing was retaliation for reporting criminally-punishable acts | James says she was fired for reporting Adamson’s forgery/backdating and Gibson’s abuse, which are illegal and protected under McArn | Plaza contends James was fired for conducting investigations and not following chain of command, not for reporting illegal acts | Denied summary judgment — genuine disputes of fact on causation preclude resolution on summary judgment |
| Title VII race discrimination — whether termination was racially motivated | James contends white employees received favorable treatment and termination was pretextual/ motivated by race | Plaza proffers legitimate, non-discriminatory reason: termination for investigation/chain-of-command violations | Denied summary judgment — issues of pretext and credibility require jury resolution |
| Causation / pretext — whether employer’s reason was pretextual or a cover for retaliation/discrimination | James argues temporal proximity, adverse treatment of white employees, and retaliatory conduct by Adamson support inference of pretext/causation | Plaza points to documented suspension, written warning, and asserted non-discriminatory policy violations as legitimate reasons | Denied summary judgment — factual disputes and credibility determinations preclude summary disposition |
| State tort claims (gross negligence, emotional distress, outrage, negligent supervision) — whether summary judgment appropriate | James asserts state torts arising from discharge and workplace conduct | Plaza argues claims fail as matter of law or on the record | Court declines to resolve at summary judgment; orders fuller trial briefs and inclusion in pretrial materials |
Key Cases Cited
- McArn v. Allied Bruce–Terminix Co., 626 So. 2d 603 (Miss. 1993) (adopts narrow public-policy exception for employees discharged for reporting illegal acts)
- Swindol v. Aurora Flight Sci. Corp., 194 So. 3d 847 (Miss. 2016) (discusses McArn public-policy exception)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and movant’s initial burden)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (employer’s burden of production and role of credibility in discrimination cases)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for disparate-treatment claims and burden shifting)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (employer’s burden and role of plaintiff in proving pretext)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (employer’s production burden under McDonnell Douglas)
- Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir.) (resolving factual disputes in favor of non-movant on summary judgment)
