Opinion ID: 2744917
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Id. at , 133 S. Ct. at 2533-34.

Text: The City contends that the protected activity in this case was not causally related to Chief Hawver’s and City Manager Hagood’s decisions to suspend and then terminate Smith. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Smith, however, we conclude that Smith presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the adverse employment action would not have occurred in the absence of the protected activity. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the City’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on this basis. Evidence was presented that Smith reported gender discrimination at the fire department to her superiors on numerous occasions. Indeed, early in her tenure, Smith complained to Deputy Chief McCallister about some initial difficult incidents with Coats, and McCallister warned Smith that filing a claim for a hostile 36 Case: 13-13368 Date Filed: 10/23/2014 Page: 37 of 43 work environment would make her life much more difficult going forward. Put simply, Deputy Chief McCallister effectively cautioned Smith that engaging in protected activity would result in retaliation against her. And it did. In particular, in October 2007, Smith filed a grievance with her union about the investigations which led to her suspensions. She was written up based on the content of her grievance, and then soon after received notice that she was being investigated again in relation to the August 22 incident. At about the same time, Smith also was told that she had “a big target on [her] back.” These investigations, by the City’s own admission, eventually led to Smith’s suspension and termination. Significantly, Smith met with City Manager Hagood and HR Director Hargy in December 2007, recounting the entire history of harassment she had experienced at the fire department. Hargy testified that she informed Chief Hawver of Smith’s complaints of discrimination in December 2007. During this same period, Hagood and Hawver made the decision to place Smith on suspension, prevented her from returning to work, and ultimately terminated her—purportedly based largely on the consequences of the investigation into Smith’s performance during the August 22, 2007 incident. As explained above in the discussion of Smith’s disparate treatment claims, however, there was more than enough evidence for the jury to find that the City’s stated reasons for Smith’s termination were pretextual. 37 Case: 13-13368 Date Filed: 10/23/2014 Page: 38 of 43 Based on the strong temporal proximity between Smith’s protected activity and the investigations and disciplinary activity that led to her eventual termination, as well as the evidence that the City’s reasons were pretextual and McCallister’s admission that a complaint about discrimination would lead to retaliation, a reasonable jury could have concluded that Smith would not have been terminated in the absence of her protected activity. See Weeks, 291 F.3d at 1311. D. Motion for New Trial For the reasons that we have previously discussed, the evidence at trial was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in favor of Smith as to her claims of disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Based on our review of the evidence in this case, we also cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying the City’s motion for a new trial on the basis that the jury’s verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. See Lamonica, 711 F.3d at 1312-13.