By: Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah Burke
In Lott v. Forrest County, a corrections officer sued the county sheriff’s department and her supervisors alleging she experienced a retaliatory transfer and was ultimately terminated following her testimony at a trial against her supervisors. A Mississippi district court found that the officer could survive a motion for summary judgment on her claim for First Amendment retaliation because her transfer and termination occurred after her testimony and because of her supervisors.
Rhonda Lott was a white female employed as a corrections officer with the Forrest County Sheriff’s Department. In 2013, Lott testified at a trial against both her supervisors, Bolton and Estrada, alleging that they had abused their positions by releasing a man from jail to allow him to vote in a mayoral election. After allegedly experiencing racially charged treatment following this testimony, Lott filed an EEOC complaint. After filing the EEOC complaint, she was also removed from her position and placed in a less desirable position within the prison.
Later, in 2014, Lott got into a bar fight with a fellow correction officers girlfriend. Following this incident, an investigation was opened by Estrada even though none of the people involved in the fight filed a complaint. Lott was suspended and ultimately terminated following the investigation. After her termination, Lott filed a second EEOC complaint and ultimately, a lawsuit alleging first amendment retaliation, malicious interference with employment, race discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation and wrongful discharge.
The County, Bolton, and Estrada, initially argued that the transfer to a new position was not an adverse employment action. Courts are divided on the issue of whether a transfer qualifies as an adverse employment action, however, the district court found that because specific duties were taken from Lott, this was enough to qualify as an adverse action and survive summary judgment. The Court further found that the testimony was protected speech because it concerned a mayoral election and alleged abuse of power, which is always a matter of public concern.
The district court also denied summary judgment to Bolton and Estrada on Lott’s First Amendment retaliation claim with respect to her suspension and termination because Lott was able to show that there was a link between her testimony against Bolton and Estrada and her immediate transfer out of her department and the investigation that led to her termination. The Court granted summary judgment with regard to her First Amendment retaliation claim relating to her transfer though.
The district court granted summary judgment to the County on Lott’s race discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and state claims. Lott’s race discrimination claim was dismissed because no evidence was produced to show she was treated differently because of her race. Based on similar reasoning, her racial hostile work environment claim was dismissed. Though comments were made, they were not directed at her and only one had connotations of race. The Court, based on precedent, that one isolated incident was not enough to establish a pervasive environment.
As for the retaliation claim, Lott filed her first EEOC complaint on October 23, 2013, was suspended on August 8, 2014, and terminated on September 16, 2014. The Court did not believe that these dates were close enough in time to permit a reasonable jury to infer causation. Lott was also barred by the MTCA from bringing her state law claim of wrongful discharge because she did not exhaust her employer’s internal remedies.
In summary, the district court found that a corrections officer could go forward with her claim for First Amendment retaliation because she had suffered adverse employment actions following her testifying against her supervisors at trial. However, the Court granted summary judgment against the corrections officer on her claims for race discrimination, hostile work environment, and wrongful discharge.
This case highlights two important proof elements in harassment and retaliation cases. Generally speaking, absent very severe or offensive conduct, an employee must show a pattern or practice of harassment. One or two isolated examples of harassing actions, conduct, or statements will not suffice. In retaliation cases, causation is ordinarily shown by temporal scope. The closer the protected activity is in time to the adverse employment action, the better the employee’s proof is in establishing that the protected activity was the driving force behind the adverse employment action. This can be very compelling evidence, especially if there is only a few weeks or even a couple months between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on The Right to Free Speech. **
