Traci Moultrie v. Georgia Department of Corrections
703 F. App'x 900
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Traci Moultrie, an African‑American probation officer with the Georgia DOC, filed multiple grievances alleging racial discrimination and retaliation by coworker Clark Arick and supervisor Sharon Cashin; Arick resigned during an internal investigation.
- Cashin became Chief Probation Officer in 2009; Moultrie claimed Cashin passed her over for promotions and special assignments and retaliated after Moultrie filed grievances in 2012.
- In May 2012 a probationer was wrongfully arrested based on a warrant Moultrie issued; supervisor Marcia McIntyre reviewed the file and concluded Moultrie failed to review the hard file or SCRIBE notes and recommended termination for negligence.
- Internal affairs investigated Moultrie’s grievances in June 2012; McIntyre terminated Moultrie after the internal affairs investigation concluded and testified she had not known of the grievances when she initially decided to terminate.
- Moultrie sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and Title VII alleging race discrimination and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants (DOC, Cashin, McIntyre), and Moultrie appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliation — causation (awareness) | Temporal proximity and Office practices let a jury infer supervisors knew of Moultrie’s grievances before adverse actions | Cashin and McIntyre unequivocally denied prior awareness; internal affairs protocol withheld grievance substance until investigation, so no causal link | Affirmed: plaintiff’s evidence is speculative; temporality alone insufficient where decisionmakers deny knowledge and no non‑speculative evidence rebuts denial |
| Discrimination — similarly situated comparators | Three named white employees (Fagge, Morahan, McLane) were treated more favorably for comparable misconduct | Defendants: comparators’ misconduct materially differed in quality (e.g., procedural mistakes vs. failure to review SCRIBE) and thus are not "nearly identical" | Affirmed: comparators not similarly situated because Moultrie’s failure to review SCRIBE was qualitatively worse |
| Convincing‑mosaic theory | Circumstantial mosaic (history with Arick and Cashin, differential treatment, timeline) permits inference of intentional discrimination | Evidence weaker than precedent; no proof of systematic race‑tracking or clear disparate discipline pattern | Affirmed: plaintiff failed to present a convincing mosaic sufficient to survive summary judgment |
| Qualified immunity (officials) | Defendants lack immunity because their actions violated clearly established rights | Even if decisions were wrong, Moultrie failed to show constitutional/statutory violation, so qualified immunity applies | Affirmed: because no viable discrimination/retaliation claim, qualified immunity provides independent basis for judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Peppers v. Cobb Cty., 835 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir.) (standard for reviewing summary judgment in this circuit)
- Penley v. Eslinger, 605 F.3d 843 (11th Cir.) (limits on drawing inferences at summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct.) (summary judgment/genuine dispute standard)
- Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir.) (elements of retaliation claim and causal‑link construction)
- Clover v. Total Sys. Servs., Inc., 176 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir.) (decisionmaker awareness requirement and when temporal proximity is insufficient)
- McCann v. Tillman, 526 F.3d 1370 (11th Cir.) (temporal proximity may support causation when not rebutted)
- Burke‑Fowler v. Orange Cty., 447 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir.) (McDonnell Douglas framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir.) (prima facie elements and comparator requirement)
- Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555 (11th Cir.) ("similarly situated" requires nearly identical misconduct)
- Maniccia v. Brown, 171 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir.) (comparator misconduct must be nearly identical in quality and quantity)
- Smith v. Lockheed‑Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir.) (convincing‑mosaic approach to avoid McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Connelly v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 764 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir.) (examples of sufficient circumstantial patterns)
- Rioux v. City of Atlanta, 520 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir.) (qualified immunity for government officials)
- Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir.) (temporal gaps that do not alone establish causation)