Court Opinion

ID: 9477316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:19:52.454171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:48.516233
License: Public Domain

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in part and respectfully dissent in part. I concur in that part of the majority’s opinion which found there was no due process violation; however, I do not agree that appellant did not make out a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge.
As the majority opinion recognizes, to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge appellant has to prove that (1) he was engaged in statutorily protected activi*1392ty, (2) he suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal connection existed between the two. Womack v. Munson, 619 F.2d 1292, 1296 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 979, 101 S.Ct. 1513, 67 L.Ed.2d 814 (1981). The district court found that appellant failed to establish the prima facie case because in its opinion appellant’s conduct in attempting to obtain a statement from Mahoney was not protected activity as it was “bizarre.” It relied heavily in reaching that conclusion upon Garrett v. Mobil Oil Corp., 531 F.2d 892 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 848, 97 S.Ct. 135, 50 L.Ed.2d 121 (1976) (Garrett), and E.E.O.C. v. Shoney’s, Inc., 536 F.Supp. 875 (N.D.Ala.1982) (Shoney’s). The district court dealt with neither the second nor third element of a retaliatory discharge case. Consequently, it is unclear whether this was a concession as to their existence or whether the district court found that it was unnecessary for either the second or third elements to be discussed because of its disposition of the protected activity claim and its conclusion that appellant’s conduct was bizarre.
There seems to be no question, at least in my opinion, that appellant’s discharge grew out of his efforts to obtain a statement from Mahoney for his immediate pending EEOC factfinding conference. If appellant's efforts in this regard were reasonable he would be engaged in statutorily protected activity. In examining appellant’s conduct in this context, the district court determined that his actions in pursuing those protected activities were so “bizarre” as- to remove him from that protection.
Turning to the timely complaint of retaliation, based on the plaintiff’s conduct in January 1983, there is a strong chronological connection between the incident with Rhonda Mahoney and the pendent EEOC complaint. Ms. Mahoney’s testimony is convincing, however, that she became deeply offended and even fearful when plaintiff was grossly persistent in his attempts to obtain a revised witness statement from her. There is nothing to indicate that she would have objected or that defendants would have taken adverse action if plaintiff had limited his contacts to reasonable bounds. Plaintiff had become disruptive and almost frantic in his involvement in his own controversies and grievances. The protection against retaliatory conduct must be generously enforced, but plaintiff cites no authority and I have found none that would protect conduct as bizarre as that under consideration.
Jackson v. St. Joseph’s State Hospital, Civ. No. 84-6127, at 3-4 (W.D.Mo. Nov. 14, 1986).
The question then before this court is at what point does an employee/complainant’s action cease to be protected under 42 U.S. C. § 2000e-3. This is a question of law, because it was this alone that in the district court’s opinion negated appellant’s prima facie case and persuaded the district court that appellee should prevail.
In retaliation cases the question before the court is not whether the employee’s actions or complaints are wise or justified. Neither is it whether the employer had other nonretaliatory grounds on which they could have acted against the employee, unless the employer can show that these other grounds would have resulted in discharge even absent the protected conduct. Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410, 416, 99 S.Ct. 693, 697, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979). The ultimate question is, were the employer’s actions related to the protected activity? Here the court found that they were and concluded as a matter of law that the prohibition against retaliation did not apply in this case because of the manner which appellant pursued those protected activities. If, and in my opinion it is, this was a conclusion of law, this court’s scope of review of that decision is broad, beyond the normal “clearly erroneous” standard utilized with regard to factual questions.
Even if I were to assume for purposes of argument that the question of whether appellant’s activity was protected is strictly factual, the evidence still shows that his efforts to clear himself of serious allegations of sexual harassment were not “bi*1393zarre”; and, therefore, the court’s finding otherwise was clearly erroneous.
Let us now determine by examining appellant’s conduct if the manners and methods that he used in conducting his protected activity somehow stripped him of Title VII’s protection. The district court likened appellant’s conduct to that found unacceptable in Shoney’s and Garrett. In Sho-ney’s an employee was discharged after pursuing an EEOC complaint for three days without attending to his job duties during the entire period. In Garrett the employee pursued his discrimination complaint by refusing direct orders, leaving her work station and breaking in on a personnel managerial meeting. Appellant concedes that an EEOC complaint does not give the employee “unlimited license” to pursue his or her claims however and whenever they desire. However, appellant’s efforts herein to support his EEOC complaint fell far short of “unlimited license.” Neither Shoney’s nor Garrett is apposite.
Appellant’s total amount of time spent attempting to get a statement from Maho-ney was “45 minutes” on January 24,1983, followed by a “few minutes” later that same day and “a short period” two days later on the 26th. Timewise, appellant’s efforts in no way are as egregious as the conduct in Shoney’s where the employee spent three complete days neglecting his job. Likewise, appellant’s efforts to obtain a statement from an employee, Mahoney, who admittedly disliked him, cannot be compared with the employee in Garrett who barged in on upper management meetings demanding confrontation. Note Ma-honey’s cross-examination:
Question: I believe you said he brought this written document and he gave it to you and said you could change it as you saw fit and then sign it, is that correct?
Answer: He laid it on my desk and he was standing to the side of me. I was in my chair and he was standing at the comer of my desk. He said, will you please read this over and you can make any revisions that you think might be necessary, and then I could have it typed for your signature.
(emphasis added). (Vol. II, Tr. 356). Query: Does Mahoney’s answer describe appellant’s conduct as “bizarre?” I think not.
Appellant’s efforts to obtain a statement for the EEOC factfinding conference (as the hospital was also doing during the same period) were thus reasonable. It is indeed strange that the district court found appellant’s conduct “bizarre” when the witness herself in her written statement to the assistant superintendent, Mr. Farrar, did not describe it as harassment; and Farrar himself when made aware of appellant’s conduct merely described it as persistent. [Vol. Ill, TR. 570].
Appellant’s claim that his discharge by appellee violated § 704(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) deserves more than a short shrift. I, too, agree in principle that an employee’s conduct in gathering or attempting to gather evidence to support his charge or in defense of charges made against him may be so excessive and so deliberately calculated to inflict needless economic hardship on his employer that the employee would and should lose the protection of § 704(a). However, there is no evidence whatsoever in the present case that the employer was in any way affected or suffered any economic hardship or loss or that its business was in some way obstructed or held up so that it could not continue its everyday operations. There is no dispute that the activity complained of by appellee in reference to appellant’s conduct amounts to nothing more than a few conversations over a very short span of time.
Indeed, appellee’s argument in support of its defense that appellant’s request to Mahoney for her statement was “unreasonable” rests not upon appellant’s actions but upon her reaction to his efforts. Appellee refers to Mahoney becoming “angry,” “upset” and “fearful” when appellant sought a statement from her for his pending EEOC charge. Yet, nowhere in the record is there any objective evidence that might lead a reasonable employer to believe that Mahoney had just cause for being “angry,” *1394“upset” or “fearful.” Mahoney’s reaction to appellant’s efforts to obtain from her a statement for his defense can only be explained in terms of her admitted dislike of appellant. [Vol. II, TR. 354], It strikes me as somewhat singular that the fact that others may have felt uncomfortable when faced with appellant’s admittedly persistent efforts to gather support for his EEOC claim should strip him of his Title VII protection.
The district court’s characterization of appellant’s conduct as the “last straw” puts the entire situation into sharp focus. From the employer’s view point during the course of appellant's employment he had filed three complaints alleging employment discrimination with the EEOC and three internal complaints based upon disciplinary actions were taken against him by appellee. The last of the three EEOC complaints involved an allegation that his discharge was retaliatory. Under the totality of the circumstances because of the number of employment and personnel complaints and problems that appellant was presenting, understandably appellee had a right to be annoyed. Not only did appellee have a right to be annoyed, but also appellee had a right if the various allegations of misconduct were shown to be true to discharge appellant. However, appellant’s persistent pursuits to vindicate his alleged EEOC complaints do not give appellee a right to retaliate against him by discharge. In other words, while appellee had a right to discharge appellant, it could not discharge him for an improper reason. As soon as appellant’s third EEOC complaint was filed, immediately things began to happen and in a very short time appellant was discharged. Under these circumstances the nexus between his filing the complaint and his discharge is obvious. Consequently, I would reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for a new trial on the retaliatory discharge claim.