411 F. App'x 226
11th Cir.2011Background
- Davis, an African-American male, worked for ATS via its parent Waste Management, transferred to ATS in 2005.
- Davis complained about a white coworker’s racial slurs and an alleged improper behavior; Hussey was ultimately fired following an investigation.
- ATS posted a lead operator opening in April 2006; applicants were required to submit written applications per policy.
- Davis did not submit a formal application; Tim Queen submitted one and was hired later in April 2006.
- Davis alleged retaliation for earlier complaints and failure to promote under §1981 and Title VII; ATS argued failure-to-apply defeats claims and temporal gap negates retaliation.
- District court granted summary judgment; on appeal the issue is whether Davis’s lack of formal application and timing invalidate his claims under §1981 and retaliation theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to apply blocks §1981 failure-to-promote claim | Davis informal interest suffices; justifiable belief exception may apply | Formal application required; no justifiable belief shown | No genuine issue; no justifiable belief; summary judgment upheld for §1981 claim denied |
| Whether there is a valid retaliation claim based on timing | Protected activity and adverse action sufficiently proximate | Three-month gap is not sufficiently proximate | Insufficient causation; retaliation claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519 (11th Cir. 1997) (elements of a prima facie §1981 discrimination claim)
- Vessels v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 408 F.3d 763 (11th Cir. 2005) (application requirement when formal procedures exist)
- Smith v. J. Smith Lanier & Co., 352 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2003) (application requirement when open positions are publicized)
- EEOC v. Joe’s Stone Crabs, Inc., 296 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2002) (justifiable belief exception to application requirement)
- Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1981) (discrimination forms that deter applications)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (adverse-action standard for retaliation)
- Pennington v. City of Huntsville, 261 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (causation can be inferred from temporal proximity)
- Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2007) (causation must be more than mere proximity unless very close)
- Turnes v. Amsouth Bank, N.A., 36 F.3d 1057 (11th Cir. 1994) (retaliation analysis applies to §1981 and Title VII)