Linda H. Moser v. Florida Department of Corrections
709 F. App'x 985
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Linda Moser, a former employee of the Florida Department of Corrections, sued under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act for gender-based hostile work environment and retaliation after filing a grievance against the warden.
- Moser alleged the warden assigned her more duties than her male predecessor, denied assistance and permanent keys, and generally harassed her because she was female.
- The warden had promoted and praised Moser, warned that the supervisor role carried extra responsibilities, and stated staffing shortages affected both tenures in the mail department.
- An Inspector General investigation found Moser attempted to misappropriate prize money awarded to an inmate (Charles Norman), filed a false disciplinary charge, and returned a letter under false pretenses; the investigator concluded she acted negligently and submitted inaccurate information.
- The warden relied on the independent investigator’s findings to terminate Moser. She appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the employer; she abandoned any challenge to the whistleblower claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment (gender) | Moser: warden’s actions and unequal duties show pervasive sex-based harassment | Dept. of Corrections: assignments and staffing explained by promotions and understaffing, not sex | Judgment for defendant — Moser produced no evidence harassment was because of sex |
| Retaliation for filing grievance | Moser: termination followed her grievance and was retaliatory | Employer: IG report provided legitimate, nonretaliatory basis for firing (misconduct) | Judgment for defendant — legitimate reason shown; no circumstantial evidence of pretext |
| Comparative discipline (similarly situated) | Moser: coworker Kenealy was not disciplined for related false statements | Employer: Kenealy was not an adequate comparator (different rank, not investigation target) | Judgment for defendant — comparator not nearly identical in misconduct |
| Summary judgment standard / timing of investigation | Moser: investigation timing and alleged flaws indicate pretext | Employer: investigation triggered by inmate’s report; courts don’t reassess prudence absent discriminatory motive | Judgment for defendant — timing/quality of investigation insufficient to show discriminatory animus |
Key Cases Cited
- Moton v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard and view of evidence for nonmoving party)
- Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2002) (elements for hostile-work-environment claim)
- Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982) (causation requirement for discrimination based on sex)
- Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2010) (employer’s burden to articulate legitimate nonretaliatory reason)
- Rojas v. Florida, 285 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2002) (courts not to second-guess employer’s business judgment absent discriminatory motive)
- Burke-Fowler v. Orange Cty., Fla., 447 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2006) (requirement that comparator’s misconduct be nearly identical to establish disparate treatment)