Ramonica M. Luke v. University Health Services, Inc.
975 F.3d 1140
| 11th Cir. | 2021Background
- Luke, an African‑American phlebotomist/processor at University Hospital (employer: University Health), worked night shift and was supervised by Vickie Forde.
- Over ~2006–2016 Luke accumulated repeated attendance counseling and warnings, including multiple final written warnings; she had 32 documented tardies in the 12 months before termination.
- On Dec. 31, 2016 a coworker complained that Luke was continuously late; an investigation of badge records, security footage, and a time adjustment entry suggested Luke arrived 12 minutes late and may have misstated a time entry.
- Forde recommended termination based on attendance history and suspected falsification; HR (Vita Mason) approved termination based on attendance history (unable to definitively prove falsification); VP of HR (Westbrook) gave final approval. Luke was terminated Jan. 11, 2017.
- Luke filed an EEOC charge alleging race discrimination, sued pro se under Title VII, and the district court granted summary judgment for University Health; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Luke’s proffered comparators show discriminatory treatment | Luke: Eight white coworkers with attendance problems were not fired, showing disparate treatment | Univ. Health: Comparators were not similarly situated—no suspected falsification, no coworker complaints, different disciplinary histories | Court: Comparators not similarly situated in all material respects; do not establish discrimination |
| Whether district court erred by referencing Angela Thomason | Luke: Thomason is not similarly situated and should not be used to show lack of pretext | Univ. Health: Even if referenced, Luke failed to show Thomason’s history differs or that it establishes pretext | Court: Issue forfeited on appeal; in any event Luke did not show Thomason made a material difference |
| Whether inconsistent reasons (tardiness vs. missed punch) show pretext | Luke: Employer gave shifting/inconsistent explanations for termination | Univ. Health: Employer consistently relied on attendance history; references to missed punch relate to the investigation, not the termination reason | Court: No meaningful inconsistency in the stated reason for termination; no pretext shown |
| Whether Luke can use the work‑rule defense (she didn’t falsify) | Luke: She did not falsify the time adjustment sheet, so firing for that rule would be pretextual | Univ. Health: Termination was for attendance history, not proven falsification; HR relied on attendance record | Court: Forfeited on appeal; even if considered, Luke did not show she did not violate the actual cited rule (attendance history), so defense fails |
| Whether deviations from employer policy show pretext | Luke: Employer failed to follow investigation and limitation policies, indicating pretext | Univ. Health: Policies cited were non‑mandatory; investigation was undertaken; termination relied on 12‑month attendance record | Court: No persuasive deviation from mandatory policy; undisputed attendance record supports termination |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct. 1973) (framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Smelter v. S. Home Care Servs. Inc., 904 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2018) (application of McDonnell Douglas in Eleventh Circuit)
- Lewis v. City of Union City, 918 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2019) (comparators must be similarly situated in all material respects)
- Furcron v. Mail Ctrs. Plus, LLC, 843 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2016) (standards for showing pretext at summary judgment)
- Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1999) (work‑rule defense: two methods to show pretext)
- Tidwell v. Carter Prods., 135 F.3d 1422 (11th Cir. 1998) (inconsistent explanations can support pretext)
- Bechtel Constr. Co. v. Sec’y of Labor, 50 F.3d 926 (11th Cir. 1995) (shifting explanations and pretext)
- Bass v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, Orange Cnty., Fla., 256 F.3d 1095 (11th Cir. 2001) (deviation from policy can be evidence of pretext)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (issues not raised in district court are forfeited on appeal)
- Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., 746 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)