Michelle Keene v. Chris Pine
477 F. App'x 575
11th Cir.2012Background
- Employees Bennett, Crews, and Keene allege sex and age discrimination, plus retaliation for political speech, after termination by Sheriff Prine and the County.
- The district court granted summary judgment, holding Eleventh Amendment immunity to be applicable to the Sheriff and County.
- The panel reviews de novo the immunity issue, the discrimination claims, and the retaliation claim.
- Evidence showed the Sheriff acted with some independence from state control in personnel decisions and funding, affecting immunity analysis.
- The district court’s summary judgment ruling is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
- The opinion concludes that a reasonable jury could find pretext in the termination decisions and that the retaliation claim based on political speech survives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity | Prine/County are not immune as arms of the state. | Prine/County are immune under Manders factors. | Immunity is not conferred; no arm-of-the-state status for Prine at firing. |
| Pretext for termination | Proffered reasons for termination are pretextual and discriminatory. | Reasons are legitimate nondiscriminatory grounds. | Summary judgment improper; reasonable jury could find pretext and discrimination. |
| ADEA/Title VII claims (prima facie and pretext) | Plaintiffs established prima facie cases; evidence shows pretext. | Defendant offered legitimate reasons not pretextual. | Discrimination claims survive, as pretext shown for some employees. |
| Retaliation for political speech | Termination retaliates against protected political activity. | Actions were for job performance and other legitimate concerns. | Pleading plausibly states a retaliation claim sufficient to proceed. |
| Qualified immunity | Even if some reasons are lawful, pretext defeats immunity on the retaliation claim. | Qualified immunity applies if lawful reasons existed. | Not appropriate to grant qualified immunity at this stage for the retaliation claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003) (four-factor test for arm-of-the-state immunity)
- Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Beech St. Corp., 208 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2000) (state control and funding considerations in immunity)
- Abusaid v. Hillsborough Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 405 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2005) (sheriff independence and county vs. state dynamics)
- Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2004) (McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting and pretext framework)
- Burdine v. TX Dept. of Community Affairs, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (prima facie case and shift to employer for legitimate reasons)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext evidence can allow a jury to infer discrimination)
- Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519 (11th Cir. 1997) (pretext evidence requirements in discrimination cases)
- Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1999) (age discrimination framework and prima facie case)
- Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993) (age as a but-for cause under ADEA)
- Hurlbert v. St. Mary’s Health Care Sys., Inc., 439 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2006) (pretext evidence when employer deviates from procedures)