Eleventh Circuit Rejects “Coerced Resignation” Claim.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

businessmen-42691_640

On April 12, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a City of Greensboro Police Officer was not coerced into resigning from his job.  See Smith v. City of Greensboro, No. 15-11643, 2016 WL 1425953 (11th Cir. Apr. 12, 2016).

In Smith, the plaintiff worked night shifts as a police officer for the City of Greensboro, but also held a day-job as a school bus driver.  In 2012, Greensboro held an election for the position of Mayor which was contested by a white man and a black man.  Smith complained about statements made by the Police Chief, who allegedly stated that black officers supporting the white candidate would suffer negative consequences.  Smith also supported the white candidate for mayor.

The black candidate won election on October 9, 2012.  In November, the Police Chief told Smith that he would be required to work day and night shifts — effectively forcing Smith to decide between his police position and his bus driving job.  On December 4, 2012, Smith submitted a doctor’s excuse requesting 6 weeks of leave, but Smith continued to work as a bus driver while on leave from the police force.  On December 13, 2012, the City Attorney requested medical documentation explaining why Smith could work as a bus driver, but not as a police officer.  When Smith failed to provide documentation, the City Attorney issued a letter on December 20, 2012 informing Smith that he had resigned or abandoned his position.

Smith filed suit claiming retaliation under Title VII and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Both claims require proof of an “adverse job action.”  Thus, Smith claimed that he suffered a “coerced resignation.”

The Eleventh Circuit ruled that an employee can only prevail on a “coerced resignation” claim if “under the totality of the circumstances, the employer’s conduct in obtaining the employee’s resignation deprived the employee of free will in choosing to resign.”  Three factors guided that analysis:  (1) whether the employee was given some alternative to resignation; (2) whether the employee understood the nature of the choice he was given; and, (3) whether the employee was given a reasonable time in which to choose.

The Eleventh Circuit found that Smith was not coerced into resignation.  Instead, he was given an alternative to resignation:  providing a medical reason for his inability to work as a police officer.  The Court further found that Smith understood the choice he was given and had ample time to make it.  Therefore, the Court affirmed dismissal of his claims.

Smith demonstrates that employees who resign from employment face a difficult burden in claiming that they were forced to resign.