Mason v. George
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75150
M.D. Ga.2014Background
- Harold B. Mason, an African-American part-time employee at Flint RiverQuarium (FRQ) from Nov. 2010 to Jan. 2013, received verbal coaching, oral reprimands, and two written write-ups in Jan. and Mar. 2012.
- Mason filed an EEOC charge on April 25, 2012 alleging race discrimination based on a Jan. 19, 2012 write-up (and submitted a Mar. 21, 2012 disciplinary form to the EEOC).
- After an incident on Jan. 12, 2013 (confrontation with Guest Services Manager Sherrell Lamar), FRQ terminated Mason on Jan. 22, 2013 for insubordination and altercations.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing (1) individual supervisors cannot be liable under Title VII; (2) Mason exhausted only the two write-ups and not age/gender claims; (3) the write-ups were not adverse employment actions and Mason failed to ID a similarly situated comparator; (4) harassment was not severe/pervasive; (5) retaliation claim lacked causal showing.
- Mason opposed but failed to file the Local Rule 56 responsive statement of facts; many facts in FRQ’s statement were therefore deemed admitted. The court independently reviewed the record and granted summary judgment for Defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual supervisors (George, Batson) are liable under Title VII | Mason sued supervisors for discrimination/harassment | Only employers, not individual employees, are liable under Title VII | Dismissed individual defendants; Title VII liability limited to employer (FRQ) |
| Scope of claims (exhaustion) | Mason alleged race, age, and gender discrimination in filings | EEOC charge only referenced race/write-ups; age/gender not exhausted | Age and gender claims not exhausted; court limited claim to two write-ups and termination related to race |
| Whether the write-ups and other conduct constituted adverse employment actions / discriminatory discipline | Write-ups and a "padded personnel file" harmed future employment prospects and were adverse | Write-ups did not change job duties, pay, hours, title, or benefits; thus not materially adverse; termination was adverse | Write-ups not adverse; termination was adverse but Mason failed to present a similarly situated comparator to establish disparate treatment, so discrimination claim fails |
| Hostile work environment and retaliation claims | Filing EEOC complaint escalated hostility and led to retaliation and an abusive environment | Alleged incidents are isolated/insufficiently severe or pervasive; temporal gap and lack of evidence defeat causation for retaliation | Hostile work environment claim fails (not sufficiently severe/pervasive); retaliation claim fails for lack of causal link and insufficient evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination)
- Dearth v. Collins, 441 F.3d 931 (individuals not liable under Title VII)
- Davis v. Town of Lake Park, Fla., 245 F.3d 1232 (definition of adverse employment action; objective standard)
- Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079 (requirement that comparator be similarly situated in all relevant respects)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (hostile work environment principles)
- Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (temporal proximity must be very close to infer causation)
- Higdon v. Jackson, 393 F.3d 1211 (causal link and temporal proximity in retaliation claims)