Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—M.D. Fla.: City clerk suspended then fired after filing grievance, taking FMLA leave, advances reprisal claims, (Apr 9, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The clerk also survived summary judgment on her defamation claim based on a city commissioner’s comment in a public meeting about her “other boyfriend.”

Denying summary judgment against the FMLA and state-law retaliation claims of a municipal city clerk who alleged she was suspended and later fired in retaliation for filing a grievance and an EEOC charge against her employer, and for taking FMLA leave after being humiliated by a city commissioner at a public hearing who allegedly insinuated she was promiscuous, a federal district court in Florida found fact issues regarding the city’s proffered reasons for the adverse actions. The court also allowed the employee’s defamation per se claim against the city commissioner to proceed to trial (Anderson v. Huffman, No. 8:23-cv-2782-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2025)).

The employee, who began working as deputy clerk in 2017, was promoted to city clerk in November 2020. In that position, she was responsible for, among other things, drafting the minutes for city commission meetings, ensuring the minutes were presented for the commission’s approval, and filing and recording commission-approved ordinances and resolutions with Municode. The city’s five commissioners supervise the city clerk and elect amongst themselves one commissioner to act as mayor.

Performance evaluations. Although the employee received some criticism from two commissioners in her 2021-2022 performance evaluation for not timely maintaining minutes of the commission meetings, overall, she received generally positive feedback and was even heralded as an “exceptional employee” who exceeded expectations.

Supervisor’s letter. In April 2022, the county supervisor of elections presented a letter to the city manager detailing certain performance deficiencies with the employee including a “disappointing pattern of unresponsiveness and missed deadlines.” According to the employee, she met with all but one of the commissioners to refute the letter’s allegations.

Grievance. In May 2022, the employee presented a letter entitled “Grievance” to the city attorney and the HR director regarding one of the commissioners, who was the mayor at that time. The employee asserted claims of a hostile work environment, bullying, defamation, and psychological harassment. The city, in response, hired an attorney to investigate. According to the city, the attorney emailed his report to the city attorney in November 2022, though the employee argued that he had a telephone conference with the city attorney and others in September.

Commission meeting. In June, just days after the employee submitted her grievance, the commission held a public meeting during which the employee’s boyfriend questioned the mayor’s ability to hold office. After asking him to leave, the mayor stated publicly “And just for those of you who are not aware,” that’s our city clerk’s “other boyfriend.”

FMLA leave. Claiming she was distraught and unable to work, the employee took FMLA leave. She was subsequently diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and insomnia. While she was on leave, the city learned that certain ordinances had not been updated in Municode. On the day she returned from leave in September 2022, the commission held a public meeting that she attended and voted to suspend her.

EEOC charge and termination. In response, the employee filed an EEOC charge that was emailed that same day to the city attorney and the mayor. The following day, the commission voted 3-2 to terminate the employee at another public hearing. She then sued the city for retaliation in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), the Florida Public Whistleblower Act (FWA), and the FMLA. She also sued the commissioner/mayor for defamation.

FCRA claim. Although the city acknowledged the employee engaged in protected activities when she submitted her grievance in May and her EEOC charge in October, it argued that she could not establish a causal connection between them and her suspension and termination as she was already on “thin ice” due to the backlogged minutes and election supervisor’s letter when she submitted her grievance. It also pointed to the four months between her grievance and her suspension.

Finding the employee established a prima facie case, the court noted evidence the commissioners were all aware of the employee’s grievance and the mayor had a copy of it that she discussed and released to others. Further, two days after she submitted the grievance, the mayor made her “other boyfriend” comment. Within weeks of this, the employee took FMLA leave. On the day of her return, the commission suspended her. In addition, there was evidence the mayor asked if the commission could terminate the employee while she was on FLMA leave.

And this, the court observed, “all came on the heels of Plaintiff’s generally positive performance reviews in the winter of 2021-2022.” The commission also allegedly discussed giving the employee a raise before it learned of her grievance.

Thin ice. As to the city’s contention the employee was on thin ice when she submitted the grievance, there was evidence at least some of the commissioners knew there were backlogged minutes prior to the employee’s tenure and the mayor, in her evaluation of the employee, gave her a good review while expressly acknowledging the backlog.

Regarding the election supervisor’s letter, the court found in unclear whether it was considered by the commission when voting to terminate the employee. Though the mayor claimed she considered it, the transcript of the termination meeting did not appear to show the mayor mentioned it in her articulated reasons for termination. And at least one commissioner stated that he thought the issues in the letter could be worked out and that it did not serve as a basis for his termination recommendation. Thus, said the court, summary judgment was not appropriate on this issue.

FWA claim. Turning to the employee’s FWA retaliation claim, the court first noted that courts have accepted employees’ harassment/whistleblowing complaints to employers as protected activity under the FWA, cataloging them as disclosures of “mismanagement, malfeasance, [or] misfeasance... by an employee... of an agency.” Finding it disputed whether the employee’s grievance was a protected disclosure under the FWA, the court noted that it included claims for hostile work environment, bullying, defamation, and psychological harassment, and concluded that “[a]ny work concerns are correctable, but the personal attacks are unprofessional, with a gross misuse of the commissioners’ seat.” This, said the court, “is a whistleblower complaint sufficiently alleging mismanagement or malfeasance that falls within the broad purview of the FWA.

FMLA retaliation. Arguing next that the employee could not show her FMLA leave was a but-for cause of her suspension or termination, the city again asserted that she was on thin ice due to the backlogged minutes and election supervisor’s letter prior to beginning leave in June 2022. The employee, however, presented evidence the mayor asked whether the city could terminate her while she was on FMLA leave and stated that she expected the employee to have the minutes and Municode updated at all times. This was enough, said the court, to permit the inference that the mayor did not want the employee on FMLA leave and penalized her for using it when city work remained outstanding.

There was also evidence the mayor made comments about the employee being “AWOL” despite knowing she was on FMLA leave. Further, the HR director stated that the city attorney and other managerial employees discussed “bogus” reasons to terminate the employee such as reasons relating to the timeliness of her FMLA paperwork. In addition, she was suspended the same day she returned to work. Accordingly, the court found she stated a prima facie FMLA retaliation claim subject to factual dispute requiring trial.

FMLA interference. As to the employee’s claim the city interfered with her FMLA rights, the court noted evidence the mayor apparently expected that the minutes and Municode backlog somehow be substantially rectified during the couple of months the employee was on FMLA leave. In addition, another commissioner testified that she considered “the whole picture” when voting to terminate the employee and the employee was suspended the day she returned from leave. Reasoning that this could all be interpreted as evidence the employee was penalized for taking FMLA leave, the court denied summary judgment on this claim.

Pretext evidence. Because the city proffered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the adverse actions—the backlog of minutes, the election supervisor’s letter, and the out-of-date Municode—the court turned to evidence of pretext. Finding triable issues of fact, the court again noted evidence the commissioners knew about backlogged minutes from long before the employee filed her grievance and took FMLA leave. Indeed, it noted, before the employee went on FMLA leave, the city’s approach was to hire help for her to get the minutes up to date, not to discipline her for the backlogged minutes.

There was also evidence the commissioners knew the Municode was behind before the employee submitted her May grievance but only treated it as a problem during her FMLA leave. Finally, as to the election supervisor’s letter, it did not appear that any of the commissioners mentioned it as part of their rationale for terminating the employee.

In addition, said the court, there was evidence the HR director, city attorney, and others discussed whether they could fire the employee while she was on FMLA leave. Finally, the HR director testified that there “was never a time when you weren’t—they weren’t talking about terminating her. It was about the minutes. It was about the FMLA. Any area that, you know, normally you would not use, that was what was being done.” Accordingly, the court denied summary judgment against the employee’s retaliation claims.

Defamation claim. As to her defamation claim against the mayor based on her “other boyfriend” comment, the court first found that the mayor did not enjoy absolute immunity from defamation as the comment was not made pursuant to her job duties regarding the employee. The commission was not discussing the employee or her employment in any way at the time of the comment and the comment would not have contributed anything relevant to that conversation had it been occurring.

Also rejected was the city’s contention that the comment did not expressly state that the employee was promiscuous, and thus it had to be inferred. But that, said the court, “would be the opinion one might hold of someone having multiple boyfriends. That Plaintiff had two boyfriends is a ‘factual’ statement.”

Finally, as to the city’s contention the employee could not show the mayor made the statement with knowledge or reckless disregard as to falsity, the employee asserted that she did not have multiple boyfriends and never spoke to the mayor about her personal life or relationships and another commissioner testified that the mayor made the comment based on “hearsay” and he felt it inappropriate for her to comment on something she “can’t prove is true.” Thus, the court allowed this claim to advance as well.

The case is No. 8:23-cv-2782-WFJ-AAS.

Judge: Jung, W.

Attorneys: Kelly Hagan Chanfrau (Chanfrau & Chanfrau) for Erica Anderson. Chase Ellis Hattaway (Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell) for Anne Huffman and the City of Haines City, Florida.

Companies: City of Haines City, Florida

Cases: Retaliation EmployeeLeave StateLawClaims Discharge Whistleblowers PublicEmployees