Melinda James v. Total Solutions Inc.
691 F. App'x 572
11th Cir.2017Background
- James, a white program manager at Total Solutions (a CDC contractor), was hired in 2009; she temporarily backfilled as a contract specialist while two African American colleagues (Lewis and West) covered her program-manager duties.
- After returning, James was criticized for multiple performance problems (pay-rate errors, improper termination date entry, poor client communications); McKinney (CEO) and Total Solutions testified the CDC complained about James’ performance and McKinney ordered her termination in October.
- James filed an EEOC charge alleging racial discrimination (arguing Lewis and West actually caused the errors) and then took a new job at another contractor; Total Solutions disclosed her EEOC charge to the CDC out of conflict-of-interest concerns, which James alleged was retaliatory (second EEOC charge followed).
- Later, while James worked inside the CDC, McKinney (after being told by a CDC representative) spoke with a CDC contracting officer about James’ EEOC charge; the CDC confirmed no conflict.
- James sued Total Solutions and McKinney for race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and § 1981; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was pretext for race discrimination | James: performance criticisms were false; errors were actually by Lewis and West | Total Solutions: termination based on documented performance problems and CDC complaints | Reversed? No — Affirmed: proffered reason not shown false; no genuine issue of pretext |
| Whether first disclosure to CDC was retaliatory | James: disclosure of her EEOC charge was retaliation for protected activity | Total Solutions: disclosure was a reasonable, non-retaliatory conflict-of-interest concern | Affirmed: employer’s reasonable belief is dispositive; no pretext shown |
| Whether second discussion (McKinney speaking to Lester) was retaliatory | James: the conversation about her EEOC charge was retaliatory | Total Solutions: McKinney was directed by CDC to speak to Lester; action was client-driven and non-retaliatory | Affirmed: no evidence McKinney was not told or secretly motivated by retaliation |
| Whether Title VII claim can proceed against individual (McKinney) | James: sued McKinney individually under Title VII | Defendants: Title VII does not permit suits against individuals | Affirmed: Title VII relief available only against employer; individual Title VII claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2012) (summary-judgment review standard)
- D’Angelo v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 422 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2005) (summary-judgment standard)
- Allen v. Bd. of Pub. Educ., 495 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2007) (genuine-issue standard for summary judgment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination)
- Quigg v. Thomas Cty. Sch. Dist., 814 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2016) (prima facie, employer’s nondiscriminatory reason, pretext)
- Rice-Lamar v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 232 F.3d 836 (11th Cir. 2000) (§ 1981 and Title VII elements in employment context)
- Springer v. Convergys Customer Mgmt. Grp. Inc., 509 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2007) (pretext requires falsity and discriminatory motive)
- Rojas v. Florida, 285 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2002) (retaliation analyzed under McDonnell Douglas)
- Rioux v. City of Atlanta, 520 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2008) (employer’s belief at time of action evaluated for pretext)
- Dearth v. Collins, 441 F.3d 931 (11th Cir. 2006) (Title VII does not allow suits against individuals)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (definition of materially adverse action in retaliation claims)