Julia McCreight v. Auburn Bank
117 F.4th 1322
11th Cir.2024Background
- Julia McCreight and Rebecca Wester, women over 60, were terminated from AuburnBank following errors in the loan approval process.
- McCreight, a mortgage loan originator, approved a loan using an outdated process, resulting in increased risk to the bank. She claimed not to have been notified about changes to the approval letter and alleged continued use was permitted.
- Wester, a loan closer, failed to verify a borrower's employment status prior to loan closing. She had prior performance issues and had delegated a required task during her absence.
- Both plaintiffs alleged discrimination based on age (under the ADEA/AADEA), McCreight also alleging sex-plus-age discrimination (under Title VII), and both alleged retaliation after complaints to HR about discrimination and a hostile work environment.
- The district court granted summary judgment to AuburnBank and King (the mortgage department manager) on all claims. Plaintiffs appealed only the discrimination and retaliation claims.
- Central legal topics included the nature of sex-plus and mixed-motive claims, summary judgment standards under McDonnell Douglas and the 'convincing mosaic' approach, and issue preservation on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex-plus-age discrimination claim | McCreight: Fired due to being an older woman (intersectional claim); mixed-motive theory applies | AuburnBank: Fired for performance; insufficient evidence of sex discrimination | Affirmed summary judgment; insufficient evidence of sex discrimination |
| Age discrimination under ADEA/AADEA | Both: Fired due to age; comparators treated more favorably, evidence shows pretext | AuburnBank: Terminations justified by performance issues, no age-based animus | Affirmed summary judgment; no reasonable jury could find age bias |
| Retaliation under Title VII/ADEA | Both: Fired in retaliation for complaints about discrimination and hostile work environment | AuburnBank: Decision-makers unaware of discrimination complaints at firing | Affirmed summary judgment; no evidence of causal link (knowledge) |
| Preservation of 'convincing mosaic' | Plaintiffs: Standard summary judgment argument preserves right to this theory | Defendants: Plaintiffs failed to raise/brief 'convincing mosaic' in district court | Majority: All such claims evaluated under summary judgment standard |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for employment discrimination claims)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (ADEA requires 'but-for' causation; mixed-motive unavailable under ADEA)
- Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (Title VII allows mixed-motive theory; same-decision defense limits remedies for employer)
- Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321 (convincing mosaic is a summary judgment metaphor, not a separate legal standard)
- Jefferies v. Harris Cnty. Cmty. Action Ass’n, 615 F.2d 1025 (Title VII applies to sex-plus claims targeting subgroups within a protected class)
- Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (discrimination claim under ADEA must prove age had 'determinative influence')