Jerberee Jefferson v. Sewon America, Inc.
891 F.3d 911
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- Jefferson, an African-American employee, worked as a probationary finance clerk at Sewon and sought a transfer to Sewon’s information-technology (IT) department where she was taking IT classes.
- IT manager Gene Chung initially encouraged the transfer, administered a basic knowledge test, and told Jefferson she would be transferred, but later told her she was ineligible because the position required five years’ experience and a higher-level manager “wanted a Korean in that position.”
- Jefferson immediately complained to HR (Ken Horton) about the alleged discriminatory remark; HR told her to “brush it off.”
- Shortly before and after the complaint, Jefferson received unusually low probationary performance evaluations from her finance supervisors and was terminated one week after her complaint; Sewon did not follow its progressive-discipline policy.
- Jefferson sued for discrimination (failure to transfer and discriminatory termination) and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and § 1981; the district court granted summary judgment for Sewon; the Eleventh Circuit reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether refusal to transfer was an adverse employment action and discriminatory | Jefferson: denial of transfer was materially adverse (different duties, training, career path) and direct evidence of discrimination (Jung said he “wanted a Korean”) | Sewon: transfer denial not an adverse action and, at most, circumstantial evidence; plaintiff unqualified | Held: Refusal to transfer was a materially adverse action; Jung’s alleged remark constituted direct evidence of discrimination, so summary judgment on the transfer claim was erroneous |
| Whether termination was discriminatory (disparate treatment) | Jefferson: termination tied to biased enforcement of chain-of-command and differential discipline against non-Koreans | Sewon: termination based on failing probationary evaluations and neutral policies applied properly | Held: Insufficient evidence of discriminatory termination; summary judgment on discriminatory-termination claim was proper |
| Whether termination was retaliatory | Jefferson: she engaged in protected complaint activity; termination followed closely and discipline was pretextual | Sewon: non-retaliatory reason (failing evaluations); Dye’s affidavit on retaliation lacked personal knowledge | Held: Complaint was protected activity; timing and other facts created triable issue of pretext/causation — summary judgment on retaliation claim was erroneous |
| Whether Dye’s affidavit alleging retaliation should have been admitted | Jefferson: Dye (HR specialist) had relevant knowledge and his statement should be considered | Sewon: Dye lacked personal knowledge of decisionmaker’s reasons; paragraph was conclusory | Held: District court did not abuse discretion excluding Dye’s conclusory paragraph about retaliation (lack of personal knowledge) |
Key Cases Cited
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (summary judgment does not violate Seventh Amendment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and reasonable factfinder instruction)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination evidence)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (but-for causation required for Title VII retaliation claims)
- Webb-Edwards v. Orange Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 525 F.3d 1013 (adverse action when employee would reasonably prefer the job to which transfer was denied)
- Alton Packaging Corp. v. EEOC, 901 F.2d 920 (direct evidence of discrimination makes McDonnell Douglas inapplicable)