Joe A. Barnett v. Athens Regional Medical Center Inc.
550 F. App'x 711
11th Cir.2013Background
- Joe A. Barnett sued his former employer, Athens Regional Medical Center (ARMC), alleging age and race discrimination (ADEA, Title VII, § 1981) and retaliation after receiving two written reprimands, a written warning, and an unsatisfactory 2009 performance evaluation.
- Barnett claimed the reprimands and the negative evaluation were adverse employment actions that affected merit increases and were part of progressive discipline leading to harsher sanctions.
- ARMC separated Barnett in June 2010 after he exhausted FMLA and non‑FMLA leave; his doctor had ordered indefinite leave. ARMC treated the separation as a medical resignation.
- The district court granted summary judgment to ARMC, finding Barnett failed to establish a prima facie case because he suffered no adverse employment action (for discrimination) and no materially adverse action or causal link (for retaliation).
- Barnett appealed, arguing the written actions and separation were adverse and that the district court improperly shifted burdens and denied him due process on the retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether written reprimands, warning, and negative evaluation constitute an adverse employment action for discrimination claims | Barnett: reprimands and negative evaluation were adverse and could foreclose merit increases and lead to progressive discipline | ARMC: those actions had no tangible effect on pay, duties, status, or discipline and thus are not adverse | Held: Not adverse; summary judgment for ARMC because no adverse employment action established |
| Whether those acts (and denial of vacation) constitute materially adverse actions for retaliation claims | Barnett: reprimands, negative evaluation, denied vacation, and eventual separation were retaliatory and would deter a reasonable employee | ARMC: the acts had no material adversity, some predated the complaint, and separation resulted from leave exhaustion, not retaliation | Held: Not materially adverse; reprimands preceded complaint; vacation denial and evaluation had no deterrent effect; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Barnett's separation was retaliatory and causally connected to protected activity | Barnett: separation was part of retaliation following his complaint | ARMC: separation was due to exhaustion of FMLA/non‑FMLA leave and indefinite medical leave; timing too remote for causation | Held: No causal link; separation explained by leave exhaustion and timing (six months) too remote to show causation |
| Whether the district court erred in summary judgment burden allocation or denied due process | Barnett: ARMC failed to show absence of facts supporting retaliation; district court denied his right to be heard | ARMC: summary judgment proper under Rule 56; plaintiff failed to produce specific evidence | Held: No error; summary judgment proper and no due process violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Avirgan v. Hull, 932 F.2d 1572 (11th Cir. 1991) (nonmoving party must present specific evidence beyond conclusory allegations)
- Welch v. Celotex Corp., 951 F.2d 1237 (11th Cir. 1992) (view inferences in favor of nonmovant on summary judgment)
- Davis v. Town of Lake Park, 245 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2001) (reprimands that are mere scoldings without subsequent discipline are not adverse employment actions)
- Gillis v. Georgia Dep’t of Corr., 400 F.3d 883 (11th Cir. 2005) (negative evaluation must have tangible effect to be adverse)
- Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005) (focus on effects of employer’s action rather than employer’s motivation)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation standard: materially adverse acts that would deter a reasonable worker)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2000) (ADEA prima facie framework)
- Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2004) (showing disparate treatment by comparison with similarly situated employees)
- Hipp v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2001) (anti‑discrimination statutes do not guarantee a stress‑free workplace)