Employment & Labor Law
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Redding v. State of Florida, Dept. Of Juvenile Justice
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29472
The plaintiff sued for gender discrimination and retaliation. The plaintiff worked for the Leon County Juvenile Detention Center. She was promoted through the ranks and in December 2002, plaintiff was moved from day to night shift by her direct supervisor because he wanted her to train she needed to train a new employee. She did not mind. Redding at 12.
Soon after, she was told by her supervisor that she would be staying on the evening shift and would not be moved back to the day shift. She said this was a hardship because of her children. She complained to the superintendent of the facility citing this was gender discrimination. Redding at 12-13.
The jury found that the plaintiff was not discriminated on because of her gender. However, they did find that the plaintiff was subject to an abusive work environment in retaliation for her complaints, and that the environment was a factor in her termination; however, the jury decided that the plaintiff would have ultimately been fired even in the absence of retaliation. Redding at 2.
For her retaliation claim, Redding alleged that they:
kept plaintiff on an unfavorable shift, issuing, an unfounded verbal reprimand and four unfounded counseling memoranda, canceling training that plaintiff had been scheduled to receive, providing plaintiff insufficient staff, undermining plaintiff's relations with her staff, assigning plaintiff unfavorable duties, refusing to allow plaintiff to return to work after a medical absence until she provided an extraordinary verification of fitness for duty, refusing for nearly a month to allow plaintiff to work while wearing an unobtrusive heart monitor...constantly treating plaintiff disrespectfully, and generally subjecting plaintiff to an abusive work environment on a daily basis.
Redding at 1-2. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for a judgment as a matter of law.
The court stated that "the jury found these actions in combination, sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute an abusive work environment. The evidence fully supported that finding... and the conclusion that these effects in combination, met the threshold level of substantially required for an actionable Title VII claim fully accords with the law of the circuit" Redding at 19.
The court reasoned by discussing what courts define as substantial. It said that some courts refer to it as "tangible" while others refer to them as "adverse employment actions." Redding at 7. The court also discussed its jury instructions and that they were in line with what it considered to be the definitions as previously discussed, noting that the defendant did not object to the jury instructions. Redding at 9.
Topic(s)
