Yenisey Perez v. Anastasia M. Garcia, P.A.
701 F. App'x 938
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Garcia owned a Miami law firm; Perez and Cini were secretaries (Perez ~5 years; Cini ~1 year).
- Garcia sent hostile emails on Feb. 4, 2015 expressing intent to fire and to change passwords; Perez and Cini had access to those emails.
- On Feb. 5 Perez emailed Garcia requesting compensation for unpaid overtime; on Feb. 9 Garcia learned they had retained counsel to pursue FLSA overtime claims.
- Between Feb. 9–13 Perez and Cini alleged escalated hostility (name-calling, lock changes, restricted computer/email access, monitoring, negative references) and resigned on Feb. 13, 2015.
- Perez and Cini sued under the FLSA for overtime and retaliation; the district court bifurcated claims, tried the wage claim, and granted summary judgment to Garcia on retaliation. The plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs engaged in protected activity | Perez: Feb. 5 email (and earlier childcare-related notice) put Garcia on notice of overtime complaint | Garcia: only the Feb. 5 email and Feb. 9 counsel notice were protected; prior childcare comments were not an overtime complaint | Court: Feb. 5 and Feb. 9 communications were protected; childcare comments were not (no fair notice) |
| Whether plaintiffs suffered an adverse employment action (constructive discharge) | Plaintiffs: escalation of hostility and workplace changes amounted to constructive discharge | Garcia: conduct predated or was consistent with prior behavior; not intolerable or sufficiently deleterious | Court: Doubtful plaintiffs met the high standard for constructive discharge; not necessary to resolve because of causation failure |
| Causation — whether adverse actions were "because of" protected activity | Plaintiffs: hostile acts and access restrictions followed notice of counsel and were retaliatory | Garcia: key hostile emails and plans to change locks occurred before protected activity; actions flowed from those preexisting decisions | Court: No but-for causation — Garcia’s Feb. 4 emails preceded protected acts and show intent independent of protected activity; summary judgment for Garcia affirmed |
| Whether timing and prior conduct permit inference of retaliation | Plaintiffs: close temporal proximity and changed conduct after Feb. 9 support inference | Garcia: long history of similar behavior; many actions were contemplated prior to protected activity | Court: Prior conduct and explicit Feb. 4 statements undermine inference; plaintiffs cannot show retaliation causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolf v. Coca-Cola Co., 200 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment standard on appeal)
- Hipp v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2001) (employer conduct must be intolerable for constructive discharge; courts not personnel departments)
- Flowers v. Troup Cty., Ga., Sch. Dist., 803 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2015) (employers may terminate for good or bad reasons without violating federal law)
- Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2010) (courts should avoid substituting their judgment for employment decisions)
- Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1 (2011) (complaints must give employer fair notice to be protected)
- Hill v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 934 F.2d 1518 (11th Cir. 1991) (high degree of deterioration required for constructive discharge)
- Griffin v. GTE Fla., Inc., 182 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 1999) (adverse act must follow protected conduct to support causation)