By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson
In Addison v. Sumter County Sheriff’s Office, a federal court in South Carolina ruled that a Sheriff’s Deputy had provided enough evidence to show that her 3-day suspension may have been in retaliation for filing a complaint of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Even though the Sheriff’s Office argued that the time between her Complaint to the EEOC and her suspension for insubordination was too long to make a connection between the two events, the court disagreed and found that Addison’s case should be brought before a jury.Melissa Addison had had difficulties with her supervisors for a long time. She was given written reprimands by her employer, and responded to them by making lengthy reports defending her conduct and accusing other employees of misconduct. At one point, the Sheriff considered demoting her, but decided not to take any disciplinary action. Later, Addison filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. After that, she continued to have issues with her superiors and almost 8 months later, she received a 3-day suspension for insubordination.
Addison filed a lawsuit, arguing that her suspension was in retaliation for filing a charge with the EEOC. Her argument was simple: she had behaved in the same way before and after filing the charge. Before the charge, the Sheriff had decided not to discipline her for this conduct. After the charge, the Sheriff decided to discipline her for the same conduct. Addison argued this meant the Sheriff was only using her workplace conduct as a pretext for punishing her for filing a complaint. Addison also provided evidence from another employee that the Sheriff’s decision to suspend her was motivated by filing the Complaint. Filing a complaint with the EEOC is a “protected activity” under federal law, so Addison sued the Sheriff’s Department for unlawful retaliation.
The Sumter County Sheriff’s Office argued that Addison’s lawsuit had to be dismissed by the Court because of an equally simple theory: too much time had passed between Addison’s EEOC Complaint and the decision to suspend her for any reasonable person to conclude one thing “caused” the other. 7 months and 19 days had passed, and the Sheriff’s Office argued that this long length of time made it impossible for Addison to ever prove that her EEOC Complaint was the reason for her suspension.
At this stage is the lawsuit, the Court did not have to decide who was right and who was wrong about the connection between filing the complaint and getting the suspension—it only had to decide whether there was a dispute about the facts. The Court determined the facts were in dispute, and that therefore a jury would have to weigh the evidence. In doing so, the Court rejected the Sheriff’s argument that a connection between the two events was impossible:
The Court finds that the time between the Plaintiff’s protected activity and her suspension is not too long to foreclose a finding that Plaintiff has established a causal connection.
The Court made this ruling because Addison had introduced other evidence that the suspension was retaliatory—one thing just following the other (nearly 8 months later) would almost certainly have not been enough:
The Court further finds that the complaints from her co-workers fail to break the causal connection between Plaintiff’s protected activity and the adverse employment action. To the contrary, this evidence juxtaposed against Plaintiff’s testimony and [evidence from the other employee] create an issue of fact and a credibility determination for the jury.
For these reasons, Addison’s lawsuit against the Sheriff’s department will be heard in front of a jury who will weigh the evidence of this case.
This case illustrates the importance of having detailed facts which suggest that whatever reasons an employer gave for an adverse employment action are unworthy of belief. These are necessary facts in any discrimination or retaliation case. Addison’s detailed rebuttal of the reasons for the suspension, including testimony from others who received treatment what she received, were enough to persuade a judge that a jury would have to decide who to believe as to the real reason for Addison’s suspension. With the real reason somewhat in doubt, a jury could conclude that the EEOC charge eight months before was the real reason. This allowed Addison’s case to move to trial.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Insubordination. **
