Opinion ID: 3164647
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Evidence of Major Matson’s Bias

Text: Plaintiff Captain Stevens also argues that Major Matson had on several occasions demonstrated gender bias, and suggests that, due to his integral role in her termination, this casts suspicion on Chief Hobbs’s proffered bases for her termination. When denying Stevens’s request to transfer a female officer to her shift sometime in 2011, Matson allegedly commented that “there’s too much estrogen on your shift.” Stevens also points to a September 2011 email in which Matson said, “Lemme guess . . . your hat says ‘bitchy’?” in response to an email that Stevens had sent to several people that included a photograph depicting two female soldiers whose last names, “Moody” and “Kuntz,” were embroidered on the back of their hats. Additionally, Stevens alleges that Matson handed her the original proposed Last Chance Agreement on pink paper, and that he condescendingly stated that pink was her favorite color because she was a girl. In her reply brief, Stevens additionally cites Matson’s inappropriate interest in her romantic life and Matson’s pattern of attributing female officers’ work mistakes to problems in their personal lives. Stevens specifically asserts a “cat’s paw” theory of discrimination, suggesting that Chief Hobbs’s decision to offer her a Last Chance agreement was the product of Major Matson’s gender bias. A plaintiff may show that discriminatory animus caused an adverse employment action by proving that a 22 Case: 15-11265 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 23 of 24 biased party with no power to take the adverse action made a recommendation that directly resulted in the action. See Stimpson v. City of Tuscaloosa, 186 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir. 1999). Under this standard, a plaintiff may maintain a “cat’s paw” theory of discrimination by establishing that the decisionmaker followed a biased recommendation without independently investigating it. See id. at 1332. The problem for plaintiff Captain Stevens is that Chief Hobbs did not merely accept Matson’s assessment of Stevens without investigating and reaching his own conclusions. The record reflects that Hobbs personally reviewed Stevens’s disciplinary history, personally spoke with Stevens at length prior to her termination (thereby giving her the opportunity to tell her version of events), and personally revised the Last Chance Agreement. Notably, many critical facts that motivated Hobbs to discipline Stevens are not in dispute, namely that Stevens approached panel officers with the conclusion that the accident was nonchargeable without providing the officers with photographs of the accident.12 Given Chief Hobbs’s level of involvement in the process leading up to Stevens’s termination, Stevens fails to plausibly show that the adverse action she suffered was the product of Matson’s alleged bias. 12 Also, Matson’s initial recommendation was to fire Stevens, which Chief Hobbs rejected. This further suggests that Hobbs’s thinking was independent from that of Matson. 23 Case: 15-11265 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 24 of 24