The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently recognized that repeated mishandling of company funds in a short time period is a legitimate basis for terminating an employee. Chukes v. Sailormen, Inc., No. 15-12192, 2016 WL 1534071 (11th Cir. Apr. 15, 2016).
Chukes began work as an Assistant Manager for a Popeye’s restaurant franchise in September 2012. By October 26, 2012, her restaurant’s safe was short on cash at least three occasions. On that date, the franchise suspended Chukes and launched an investigation into the missing funds. The supervisor conducting the investigation testified that he intended to convert the suspension to termination if the investigation determined that Chukes was responsible for the shortages.
The day after her suspension, October 27, 2012, Chukes claimed that another employee was terminated after rejecting sexual advances by a co-worker. Thereafter, the supervisor conducting the investigation determined that Chukes was taking money from the safe, and Chukes’ employment was terminated. Chukes sued for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Those claims were dismissed in the United States District Court and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal.
Chukes tried to claim that her termination was discriminatory because funds were missing following the shift of another manager. The Eleventh Circuit rejected that argument and relied upon the requirement that “the quantity and quality of the comparator’s misconduct be nearly identify to prevent courts from second-guessing employer’s reasonable decisions and confusing apples and oranges.” The comparator had worked as a manager for years and money was only found missing once during his tenure. In contrast, money was found missing three times during Chukes’s two-month employment period.
Federal courts regularly reject attempts by employees to compare their misconduct to that of other employees who are not terminated, because the comparator employees are not “nearly identical.” Indeed, the “nearly identical” standard also played a role in a recent decision dismissing claims against Hyundai in Alabama: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Retaliation Claim Against Hyundai Thus, the Chukes and Hyundai cases demonstrate the importance of implementing uniform standards of punishment for similar conduct by similar employees.