Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—N.D. Ala.: White detective who quit because HR didn’t investigate his bias complaint quick enough gets lawsuit tossed, (Feb 7, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

“Holding otherwise would require the court to conclude that an objectively reasonable worker might be dissuaded from making a charge of discrimination if the worker knew that some period would go by without that charge being investigated.”

The City of Birmingham, Alabama, won dismissal of a former white detective’s Title VII retaliation claim alleging that he was forced to resign because HR failed to swiftly investigate his complaint that a supervisor engaged in race discrimination when she commented about whether he was planning a workplace shooting in response to his having shaved his head due to a bad haircut and a dermatological condition. A federal district court in Alabama concluded that the Supreme Court’s more lenient standard for demonstrating an adverse employment action announced in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis did not apply, but even if did, the detective failed to show how HR’s alleged delay in investigating his complaint caused him any actual harm or was an action “taken against” him (Ayres v. City of Birmingham, No. 2:24-cv-01055-RDP (N.D. Ala. Feb. 4, 2025)).

Shaved head leads to “shooting” remark. While employed by the city’s special victims unit, the detective shaved his head due to a bad haircut and a dermatological condition. On March 12, 2024, his supervisor allegedly told him that the lieutenant instructed her “to determine whether he had ulterior motives for shaving his head such as a workplace shooting.” In response, he told the lieutenant that he shaved his head “due to a messed-up haircut and for medical reasons.” He also complained to his supervisor, who advised him to file a complaint with HR.

HR complaint. On March 21, he submitted a written complaint regarding the incident, and HR acknowledged receipt the next day and informed him he would be interviewed. His complaint stated that he found the lieutenant’s instructions to be “extremely offensive and racially motivated,” because they suggested he had “intentions to commit violence based on the color of my skin and the choice of a hairstyle that is within grooming policy.” He also said he found it “extremely hurtful that I am being singled out and racially discriminated against.”

Resigns. After HR allegedly failed to provide him any update about the status of his complaint and did not interview or visually inspect him, he resigned on April 25. Though his resignation did not become effective on May 17, HR never contacted him during the one-month period. He also claimed that he asked to see his personnel file that request was denied.

Retaliation claim. The employee sued, alleging he was forced to resign because HR’s failure to investigate his complaint and refusal to meet with him or to provide him his personnel file led him to believe “he was in a hostile environment, that his safety was at stake,” and “left the impression that [he] was a racist and or a white supremacist with psychological problems.” He also “feared that the unrebutted allegations would put his safety in jeopardy if a violent shootout were to occur.”

Not taken “against him.” Granting the city’s motion to dismiss, the court held that even though the detective engaged in protected activity he failed to plausibly allege that he was subjected to any adverse employment action. The Eleventh Circuit has held that an employer’s failure to investigate an employee’s complaint is not retaliatory if there is no basis to conclude that the action is taken “against” that individual, and the detective did not plausibly allege that HR’s failure to investigate or turn over his file were actions taken against him.

Delay didn’t cause harm. Rather, his allegations were only his subjective impressions. Significantly, “[he] does not explain how it would be objectively reasonable to conclude that concerns about him being an active shooter risk would equate to him being ‘racist’ or ‘a white supremacist,’” or “how a failure to investigate could produce the impression that he was racist or a white supremacist – a failure to investigate meant HR had not yet drawn any conclusions about the merit of his complaint,” explained the court. In sum, he failed to plausibly allege that he suffered any harm by the delay in investigating his complaint.

Not “materially adverse.” He also failed to plausibly allege he suffered an action that a reasonable employee would have found to be “materially adverse.” The failure of HR to investigate his complaint before he resigned one month later, and its alleged denial of his request to review his personnel file did not rise to such a level that it “might well have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Instead, HR’s actions were “petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience,” stated the court. “Holding otherwise would require the court to conclude that an objectively reasonable worker might be dissuaded from making a charge of discrimination if the worker knew that some period would go by without that charge being investigated.”

Muldrow inconsequential. The recent Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, State of Missouri did not change this result. In Muldrow, the Court held that in Title VII discrimination claims, plaintiffs are only required to show that the employer’s actions were “disadvantageous,” and not that they were materially significant.” However, Muldrow only eliminated the heightened bar of “materially significant” for discrimination cases and not retaliation cases. But even if Muldrow’s lower bar of “disadvantageous” applied, the detective’s claim still failed since “simply put, he has not pleaded that it was a harm done to him or that he was harmed.”

No causation alleged. Finally, even if he had suffered an adverse employment action, he failed to allege that the failure to investigate was in retaliation for his internal complaint. He “did not just fail to plead a plausible causal connection; he did not plead any causal connection at all.”

The case is No. 2:24-cv-01055-RDP.

Judge: Proctor, R.

Attorneys: Russell Wayne Adams (Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher, & Goldfarb LLC) for Jordan Ayres. Samantha A. Chandler, City of Birmingham Attorney’s Office, for City of Birmingham.

Companies: City of Birmingham

Cases: Retaliation Discharge PublicEmployees AlabamaNews