Shawntae Jones v. Triple Z, Inc.
679 F. App'x 986
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jones, a used car sales representative for Pars Cars at Mount Zion, alleges harassment by her sales manager Lance Dawkins and retaliation after she complained and filed an EEOC charge.
- She contends the district court misinstructed the jury on retaliation, preventing a complete verdict on her Title VII claims.
- Pars Cars denies the allegations of harassment and retaliation.
- The court reviews jury instructions de novo for legal accuracy and reviews for prejudice if the jury charge is correct.
- Jones preserved objections to two specific instruction issues (EEOC charge as protected activity and Mount Zion ban as an adverse action) but did not preserve others related to remaining claimed retaliatory acts.
- The court affirms the district court’s jury instructions and denies relief on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retention of retaliation law in jury instructions | Jones argues instructions misstate retaliation law | Pars Cars contends instructions accurately stated law | No reversible error; instructions correct; no prejudicial harm |
| Preservation of objections | Jones preserved some objections but others were waived | Pars Cars argues waivers apply to unpreserved issues | Two exceptions do not apply; no fundamental error; affirmed |
| Protected activity and adverse action definitions | EEOC charge and Mount Zion ban should be protected actions | Definitions adequately covered both actions | Definitions sufficient; no prejudicial impact; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Conroy v. Abraham Chevrolet-Tampa, Inc., 375 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2004) (review of jury instructions de novo for misstatement or prejudice)
- Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999) (preservation of error requirement and exceptions)