By: Loyd Willaford and Sarah Burke
In Matthews v. City of Mobile, an African American police dispatcher in Alabama was terminated from her position after failing to update officers responding to a call of the presence of an armed suspect. The dispatcher argued that she was being discriminated against and retaliated against for previously filing EEOC complaints. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama disagreed and found the dispatcher had failed to demonstrate she had been treated differently than similarly situated co-workers and dismissed her claims.
Cassandra Matthews, an African American woman, was employed by the Mobile Police Department as a Public Safety Dispatcher. In November of 2012, Matthews received a phone call complaint of disorderly behavior and dispatched three officers to the scene. While the situation and call were ongoing, Matthews placed a call to her sister to discuss their Thanksgiving Day plans. A few minutes later, another dispatcher told Matthews the caller had stated that a suspect had a gun and was pointing it at the caller. However, Matthews never provided the officers responding to the situation with this information.
Afterwards, the other dispatcher reported to her supervisors that Matthews had failed to appraise officers of a potentially dangerous situation. Matthews claimed she never received the update from the other dispatcher and that she was being targeted for previously filing EEOC charges. As a result of her actions on the November 2012 priority call, the City transferred Matthews to the Traffic Unit at Police Headquarters until she was ultimately terminated. Matthews filed EEOC charges for race discrimination, retaliation and retaliatory hostile work environment based on her transfer and her termination.
The District Court first addressed whether Matthews’ transfer was an adverse employment action.
An adverse employment action requires a serious and material change in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Matthews testified that her pay and benefits remained the same with the transfer and that she did not have an issue with her shift assignment or her supervisor.
In light of this, the District Court found Matthews could not state a claim based on the transfer to the Traffic Unit.
Next, the District Court addressed Matthews’ termination. To state a claim of discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that similarly situated employees outside of the protected class were treated differently. Matthews alleged that other co-workers had also failed to communicate information as dispatchers because they were either asleep or on drugs but were not terminated. However, the district court found these allegations were different circumstances and different types of misconduct and therefore could not be used by Matthews.
This case is an example of the hostility some courts have toward employment discrimination cases. The District Court in this case stressed the fact that Matthews had made a personal call during a priority call, but downplayed the facts which suggested that the City treated Matthews harsher than other employees after she had filed EEOC charges. The District Court also downplayed the fact that the transfer in this case was involuntary and disciplinary. This would have been enough for most courts to conclude that the transfer was an adverse employment action. The Court went on to usurp the role of the jury by conveniently dismissing evidence of different treatment of other workers who had failed to properly handle calls by claiming that these were “different circumstances” or “not the same behavior” as Matthews. By this standard, almost no plaintiff would be able to show discrimination. Finally, the District Court dismissed evidence that Matthews’ supervisor had said “he was tired of the EEOC complaints.” This was all evidence that a reasonable juror could have used to conclude Matthews was discriminated against. The lesson here is that even when there is some evidence to support an allegation of discrimination, some courts simply will not let a case go to a jury where the court thinks the facts warranted termination.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Racial Discrimination.**
