Roosevelt Mealing, Jr. v. Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice, 564 F. App'x 421

Background

Mealing, a juvenile correctional officer, worked for the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice from 2005–2010 and was terminated on June 4, 2010.
Mealing previously had a sexual relationship with Lt. Kendra Strowbridge in 2006 and claimed subsequent sexual harassment and retaliatory discipline after the relationship ended; he filed EEOC charges in 2007 and 2009.
In May 2010 Mealing received written reprimands for alleged misuse of sick leave (May 3–4), alleged argumentative/insubordinate conduct after a reprimand (May 17/26), and for allegedly leaving his post on May 22 without being relieved.
On May 17, 2010 Mealing filed an internal grievance about docked pay for May 3–4; on June 1, 2010 he sent letters to supervisors referencing harassment and an EEOC complaint.
The Department relied on Mealing’s disciplinary history, the May 3–4 sick-leave issue, the alleged verbal attack on Capt. Gilmore, and the May 22 abandonment as legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination.
The district court granted summary judgment for the Department after assuming Mealing established a prima facie retaliation claim but concluding he failed to show the Department’s stated reasons were pretextual or that his protected activity was the but-for cause of termination; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the May 17 grievance and June 1 letters constituted protected activity under Title VII	Mealing argued the grievance and letters complained of harassment and referenced an EEOC complaint, so they were protected oppositional activity	Department contended the grievance/letters did not explicitly complain of unlawful discrimination and were not protected	Court assumed, for appeal, the grievance and letters qualified as protected activity but resolved the case on other grounds
Whether plaintiff showed but-for causation for retaliation (Nassar standard)	Mealing argued termination was in retaliation for his 2010 grievance/letters	Department asserted termination was for legitimate reasons unrelated to protected activity (disciplinary history, sick-leave misuse, verbal attack, abandoning post)	Court held Mealing failed to show termination would not have occurred but-for his protected activity; no but-for causation shown
Whether the Department’s stated reasons were pretextual	Mealing contended disciplinary records were fabricated and the proffered reasons were false pretexts for retaliation	Department presented documentation, supervisor testimony, and decisionmaker affidavits supporting honest belief in the stated reasons	Court held Mealing did not rebut each legitimate reason or present evidence that decisionmakers knew of fabricated records; proffered reasons were not shown to be pretextual
Whether the magistrate judge abused discretion by striking depositions taken Feb 3, 2012	Mealing argued depositions were proper and should not have been struck	Department argued Mealing failed to provide the written notice required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1)	Court affirmed striking depositions as Mealing failed to give required written notice; magistrate did not abuse discretion

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for circumstantial evidence discrimination/retaliation cases)
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (retaliation requires but-for causation)
Brooks v. County Comm’n of Jefferson Cnty., Ala., 446 F.3d 1160 (summary judgment review standard in Eleventh Circuit)
Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012 (plaintiff must rebut each of multiple legitimate reasons)
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (to show pretext plaintiff must show employer’s reasons were false and retaliation was the real reason)
Kragor v. Takeda Pharm. Am., Inc., 702 F.3d 1304 (employer's honest belief in its reasons defeats pretext where belief was held by decisionmaker)