Opinion ID: 810115
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Garrett and Pratt

Text: After receiving at least one verbal warning about his failure to wear his City-issued uniform, in September 2002 Garrett was suspended for fifteen days for failing to wear the uniform and for insubordination. On November 20, 2002, Garrett filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging that the suspension was due to racial discrimination and retaliation. On Feb. 22, 2003, the City’s Aviation Department held a job fair at which Garrett and Pratt applied for several promotions. The parties dispute how Garrett and Pratt’s applications were received by the human resources (“HR”) representatives at the fair. Garrett and Pratt assert that they were “well received and told [their] qualifications for the position were excellent.” An HR representative later approached them while still at the fair and asked whether they were the people who had filed multiple complaints against the City. Thereafter, they were told their applications had been lost and they could not be interviewed because the interviewers had left. 3 We note Appellant’s brief states that Hypolite received a 15-day suspension for failing to wear his uniform. However, multiple documents in the summary judgment record, including Appellant’s own submissions, state that Hypolite received a written reprimand, not a suspension. 3 Case: 12-20065 Document: 00512020134 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 No. 12-20065 The City, by contrast, asserts that the applications were reviewed by City HR personnel who determined that Garrett and Pratt did not have the requisite minimum construction experience for the positions. The parties agree that neither Garrett nor Pratt was offered an interview for any of the three positions to which they applied at the job fair. On May 12, 2003, Garrett and Pratt filed charges with the EEOC alleging race discrimination and retaliation in connection with not being selected for the job fair positions. On May 1, Garrett and Pratt interviewed for the positions of division manager and chief inspector. On March 1, 2004, they applied and interviewed for the position of assistant chief inspector. All of these positions would have promoted Garrett and Pratt within their current department. They were not selected for any of these positions. On March 5, 2004, the EEOC issued determination letters to Garrett and Pratt that opined that “it was reasonable to believe that [they were] denied a job interview [at the job fair] in retaliation for participating in a protected activity.”