955 F.3d 855
11th Cir.2020Background
- Susan Monaghan was hired as an executive assistant at Worldpay (Sept.–Nov. 2014) and was terminated during a 90‑day probationary period.
- Her supervisor, Tammi Daniel, made repeated race- and age‑based comments (e.g., “you white girls kill me,” “too old,” “suntan”), threatened that Monaghan would be blackballed, said she and her boyfriend knew where Monaghan lived, and told Monaghan she had “cut her own throat” for complaining.
- Monaghan repeatedly complained about Daniel’s conduct to executives she supported (but not to HR); executives told her to avoid Daniel or to stop reporting because Worldpay did not want to get sued.
- Daniel told Monaghan she was training a replacement; Daniel left in early November and Ruth Hrubala succeeded her; Hrubala and others allegedly then ignored or disciplined Monaghan.
- Worldpay fired Monaghan November 20; Monaghan contends the firing and Daniel’s threats were retaliatory and points to comments by Hrubala and HR executive April Watkins suggesting the termination related to Monaghan’s complaints.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Worldpay; the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the Burlington Northern standard governs retaliation and that a jury must decide Monaghan’s Title VII retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper legal standard for Title VII retaliation claims | Burlington Northern standard applies: materially adverse if it “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker” from complaining | Gowski (11th Cir.) standard requiring conduct be "sufficiently severe or pervasive" to alter terms/conditions | Burlington Northern controls; Eleventh Circuit reaffirms Burlington standard as the correct test for retaliation (overrules the Gowski formulation) |
| Whether Daniel’s conduct constituted materially adverse retaliatory harassment | Daniel’s threats (blackballing, training replacement, threatening physical harm, pounding table) from a supervisor could well dissuade a reasonable worker from complaining | Conduct was not sufficiently material/severe to alter employment terms; too trivial to be actionable absent a tangible action | A reasonable jury could find Daniel’s statements and threats met the Burlington “well might have dissuaded” standard; triable issue remains |
| Whether Monaghan’s termination was retaliatory | Statements by Hrubala and Watkins (e.g., “this is for Tammi,” firing for “complain[ing]”) and knowledge of executives who knew of complaints permit an inference of causation | Decisionmaker lacked knowledge of complaints; employer offered nondiscriminatory reasons (lack of confidence/trust/teamwork) | Termination is a materially adverse action and a reasonable jury could find it retaliatory based on the record; triable issue remains |
| Whether plaintiff properly litigated/pled retaliation claims under §1981 and the ADEA (procedural pleading issue) | Monaghan argued in opposition brief she pursued retaliation under Title VII, §1981, and the ADEA; the district court and parties litigated those theories | Worldpay argued such retaliation theories were not pled and thus not properly before the court | Majority limited the appeal to the Title VII retaliation claim (the only retaliation claim pled); concurrence would have allowed the §1981/ADEA retaliation claims to proceed because the parties litigated them and Worldpay did not object at the district‑court stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation actionable if it "well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker" from making or supporting a discrimination charge)
- Gowski v. Peake, 682 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2012) (prior panel applied a "severe or pervasive" "terms and conditions" formulation to retaliatory hostile‑work‑environment claims)
- Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961 (11th Cir. 2008) (adopted Burlington standard for retaliation in this circuit)
- Wideman v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 141 F.3d 1455 (11th Cir. 1998) (hostile‑environment discrimination actionable when conduct is severe or pervasive)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (Title VII is not a general civility code)
- Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2010) (applied Burlington retaliation standard)
- Wu v. Thomas, 996 F.2d 271 (11th Cir. 1993) (discussed scope of retaliatory harassment under Title VII)