Kiesha Cheatham v. DeKalb County, Georgia
682 F. App'x 881
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kiesha Cheatham, hired as a DeKalb County Fire Medic in 2008, was present when a coworker (Roberts) had an allergic reaction after onions were placed in his meal; an internal investigation followed.
- The investigation found another captain intentionally placed the onions and that Plaintiff initially mischaracterized epinephrine use but later corrected the record with a patient-care report.
- Cheatham was transferred from Station 1 to Station 17 (Oct. 2012) and received two written counselings (Dec. 2012 and Jan. 2013); she alleges these and other mistreatment were retaliation for cooperating in the investigation.
- At Station 17 she experienced derogatory comments by a captain and occasional unsanitary acts by male coworkers; she filed internal grievances, a county discrimination complaint (Feb. 21, 2013), and an EEOC charge (Mar. 14, 2013), then resigned Aug. 21, 2013.
- The district court granted defendant DeKalb County summary judgment on claims for Title VII retaliation, hostile work environment, and disparate treatment (and § 1983 equal protection parallel claim); the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Cheatham's Argument | DeKalb County's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliation (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3) — protected activity and causation | Participation in internal IA investigation and later county/EEOC complaints were protected; adverse actions followed her cooperation | Participation in internal employer investigation is not protected; the adverse actions occurred before county/EEOC filings so no but-for causation | Participation in internal investigation is not protected; only county/EEOC filings are protected, but alleged adverse acts predate those filings — no prima facie retaliation |
| Hostile work environment (Title VII) — severity/pervasiveness and protected-basis | Repeated derogatory comments by a captain, unsanitary pranks, denials of leave, and unaddressed grievances created abusive environment based on sex | Incidents isolated or not motivated by sex; plaintiff primarily perceived hostility from cooperating in investigation, not sex-based animus | Conduct was not shown to be sufficiently severe or pervasive nor clearly motivated by sex — hostile-work-environment claim fails |
| Disparate treatment (Title VII and § 1983) — adverse action and comparator | Transfer and written counselings constituted adverse actions; being only woman at Station 17 supports inference of discrimination | Transfer and counselings were not materially adverse; plaintiff failed to identify nearly identical male comparators | Transfer and counselings were not shown to be materially adverse; no properly identified similarly-situated male comparators — disparate treatment claim fails |
| Local Rule 56.1 enforcement — consideration of plaintiff's facts | Court should have considered plaintiff's contested factual statements in her statement of facts | Plaintiff failed to support many assertions with proper record citations; court may disregard unsupported facts under Local Rule 56.1 | District court did not abuse discretion applying Local Rule 56.1; unsupported assertions were disregarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Total System Services, Inc. v. Kavanaugh, 221 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir.) (participation clause does not protect internal, in-house investigations)
- Furcron v. Mail Centers Plus, LLC, 843 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir.) (elements of prima facie retaliation with circumstantial evidence)
- Booth v. Pasco County, Florida, 757 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir.) (retaliation requires but-for causation)
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. Supreme Court) (hostile-work-environment severe-or-pervasive standard)
- McCann v. Tillman, 526 F.3d 1370 (11th Cir.) (prima facie elements for disparate treatment)