Twanetta Rollins v. Cone Distributing, Inc.
710 F. App'x 814
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rollins, a female warehouse employee, worked 45 days at Cone Distributing in a 90-day probationary role; she was responsible for loading trucks and began CDL training during her fourth week.
- Supervisors and coworkers reported that Rollins was argumentative, failed to follow instructions from the CDL trainer (Yero), and had conflicts with coworker Avery Mitchell; Null (HR) decided to terminate Rollins as not a good fit.
- Rollins alleged sex discrimination (male coworkers refused to work with her because she was female and men received better training/opportunities) and retaliation (she reported Mitchell’s conduct and was then terminated).
- In discovery Rollins moved to compel (1) personnel files of all past Tallahassee warehouse employees, (2) a second deposition of corporate rep Joseph Lopez, and (3) answers to interrogatories about reasons for termination and related documents; the district court denied these requests as disproportional/duplicative but ordered limited production of notes.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Cone on both Title VII and Florida Civil Rights Act claims, finding Cone’s nondiscriminatory reasons (difficulty working with others, failure to follow instructions, training problems) legitimate and not shown to be pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to compel broad personnel files | Rollins: needed files of all past warehouse employees to identify favorable treatment of male comparators | Cone: already produced files of identified comparators; blanket request overly broad and burdensome | Denied — request disproportionate and not tailored; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Second deposition of corporate rep (Lopez) | Rollins: Lopez was unprepared; a second deposition needed to probe termination reasons | Cone: Lopez testified extensively and other witnesses covered same topics; additional deposition would be duplicative | Denied — duplicative; denial not an abuse of discretion |
| Award of discovery costs/expenses | Rollins: partially successful on motion to compel, so entitled to expenses under Rule 37 | Cone: resistance was substantially justified because many requests were duplicative/disproportionate | Denied — district court reasonably found Cone substantially justified; no abuse of discretion |
| Sex discrimination and retaliation (summary judgment) | Rollins: circumstantial evidence of sex discrimination and retaliation (comments, differential treatment, termination after complaint) | Cone: terminated for legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (not a good fit, conflicts, failure to follow instructions/training issues) | Summary judgment for Cone affirmed — Rollins failed to show pretext for discrimination or retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (issues not adequately briefed on appeal are abandoned)
- Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for discovery rulings)
- Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standard and McDonnell Douglas framework application)
- Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley, 694 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2012) (reasonable inferences standard on summary judgment)
- Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 959 F.2d 1566 (11th Cir. 1992) (discovery in Title VII cases must be relevant and proportional)
- Iraola & CIA, S.A. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 325 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2003) (further discovery may be denied when it would not help resolve issues)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988) (definition of substantially justified)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination evidence)
- Bryant v. Jones, 575 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2009) (McDonnell Douglas applied to retaliation claims)
- Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2000) (subjective employer reasons can be legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons)
- Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2004) (court not to act as personnel department; focus on discriminatory animus)
- Bechtel Constr. Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 50 F.3d 926 (11th Cir. 1995) (shifting explanations may support pretext)
- Coughlin v. Lee, 946 F.2d 1152 (11th Cir. 1991) (personnel files may be discoverable when suitably tailored)