Ranking the 11th Circuit’s Most Important Employment Decisions

Robert C. Lockwood
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Here is a quick, off-the-cuff ranking of the most important decisions in employment law for the Eleventh Circuit:

  1.  McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).  The big grandaddy of them all.  This case establishes the burden-shifting scheme which guides the analysis of most employment cases.
  2. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998); and,  Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998).  These cases establish the Faragher/Ellerth defense to sexual harassment claims.  In summary, if you have an effective, well-disseminated policy prohibiting sexual harassment and an employee fails to utilize that policy, they will probably be barred from suing.
  3. Lewis v. City of Union City, 918 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2019).  Most employees suing for discrimination point to differential treatment of other employees — called “comparators.”  This decision “clarifies” that comparators  must be “similarly situated in all materials respects.”
  4. Smith v. Lockheed–Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir.2011). McDonnell-Douglas is the big grandaddy, but this is the first case to reference the “convincing mosaic” standard.  Used by employees who cannot identify a sufficient comparator, the convincing mosaic standard asks whether the evidence,” when viewed as a whole, “yields the reasonable inference that the employer engaged in the alleged discrimination.”
  5. Drago v. Jenne, 453 F.3d 1301 (2006).  Employees suing for retaliation must prove that they were terminated because of their protected conduct.  They usually try to do that by showing close timing between their conduct and termination.  Drago establishes that a 3-month gap between protected conduct and termination is not close-enough to establish causation.
  6. Beasley v. O’Reilly Auto Parts, 69 F.4th 744 (11th Cir. 2023).  This is a relatively new case and the ramifications are still shaking out.  Some claim that it requires proof of an “adverse employment action” to sue for failure to accommodate under the ADA. At a minimum, the employee just show that the failure to accommodate “negatively impacts the employee’s hiring, advancement, discharge, compensation, training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment.”
  7. Strickland v. Water Works & Sewer Bd. of Birmingham, 239 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir.2001).  The burden on employers who interfere with employees’ FMLA rights is different than other employment statutes.  In these claims, the burden is on the employer to demonstrates that it would have taken an action “for a reason wholly unrelated to the FMLA leave.”
  8. Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).  Recognizing that discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation violates Title VII.  Interestingly, before Bostock, the Eleventh Circuit already prohibited discrimination based on “gender nonconformity.”  Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312, 1316–17 (11th Cir. 2011).
  9. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 482 (1999).  This was a Supreme Court decision so unfavorable to disabled employees that a Republican Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act — making it much easier for employees to sue for disability discrimination.
  10. Pollard v. Drummond Co., Inc., No. 2:12-CV-03948-MHH, 2015 WL 5306084 (N.D. Ala. Sep. 10, 2015).  I just really dislike this decision.  Two doctors told an employer that an employee on methadone could not work in a coal mine.  Nevertheless, the Court found a triable issue for purposes of disability discrimination.  Here’s a link to my blog post about it:  Trust Your “Company Doctor” and Violate the ADA