Lovett v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.
700 F. App'x 209
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Beatrice Lovett, an African-American retail employee, was hired by Cracker Barrel in Aug 2012 as a Shift Leader trainee and entered the PAR training program.
- Lovett alleged racial mistreatment by supervisors and co-workers, filed internal "Open Door" complaints (investigated and found meritless), and filed an EEOC charge on Sept 12, 2013.
- Lovett submitted updated availability forms twice (Sept 30, 2013 and Mar 23, 2014) removing weekend availability; Cracker Barrel reduced her hours after each change, citing business needs favoring weekend coverage.
- Lovett alleges retaliatory remarks by supervisor Moore (e.g., "people who go to the EEOC don’t get work around here anymore"), reductions in hours, and removal from the schedule in April 2014; employer insists reductions were due to restricted availability.
- After EEOC issued a no‑cause determination, Lovett sued under Title VII and § 1981 alleging racial discrimination and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment to Cracker Barrel on both claims, and Lovett appealed only the retaliation dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lovett created a genuine dispute that Cracker Barrel’s stated reason (restricted availability) for cutting her hours was pretext for retaliation | Lovett: Moore made retaliatory comments after the EEOC filing and used availability as a pretext; affidavit and voicemail show retaliatory motive | Cracker Barrel: Hour reductions track Lovett’s reduced availability; employer consistently warned availability drove scheduling; non‑retaliatory business need explains actions | Court: Held for defendant — plaintiff’s evidence insufficient to show pretext or that retaliation was the real reason |
| Whether a self‑serving affidavit alone can defeat summary judgment on pretext | Lovett: Her affidavit and voicemail constitute first‑hand evidence creating a genuine dispute | Cracker Barrel: Such uncorroborated affidavits are inadequate without objective evidence | Court: Self‑serving affidavit can suffice if based on personal knowledge, but here the affidavit + record do not create a genuine dispute |
| Whether temporal or documentary evidence supports a causal link between protected activity and adverse action | Lovett: Timing of comments and hour reductions supports causation | Cracker Barrel: Temporal sequence shows reductions followed availability changes, weakening causal inference | Court: Timing corroborates employer’s explanation; plaintiff fails to show causal link |
| Whether the district court improperly weighed credibility at summary judgment | Lovett: District court improperly resolved credibility against her | Cracker Barrel: Court relied on documentary record supporting employer’s reason | Court: No improper weighing — employer’s justification is supported and not contradicted by record |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, 424 F.3d 397 (4th Cir. 2005) (retaliation claim framework and burden shifting)
- Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., 786 F.3d 264 (4th Cir.) (retaliation standards under § 1981 similar to Title VII)
- Foster v. Univ. of Md.-E. Shore, 787 F.3d 243 (4th Cir.) (plaintiff must show employer’s reason was false and retaliation was the real reason)
- Jiminez v. Mary Washington Coll., 57 F.3d 369 (4th Cir.) (pretext requirement in discrimination/retaliation cases)
- Phillips v. CSX Transp., Inc., 190 F.3d 285 (4th Cir.) (summary judgment burden and need for more than a scintilla of evidence)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact at summary judgment)
- Berry v. Chi. Transit Auth., 618 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2010) (uncorroborated first‑hand affidavits can sometimes defeat summary judgment)
- Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562 (4th Cir.) (reversal where employer’s proffered reason lacked support or was contradicted by record)