Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—M.D. Fla.: Jury to decide if retaliatory animus caused city employee’s termination, non-hire, (Jun 24, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The administrator transferred her to a temporary role due to performance issues, and after she learned about her discrimination complaints, allegedly ensured she was terminated and rejected for an alternative job.

While a former city employee could not show she was demoted, terminated, and not selected for an alternative position because of her disability, pregnancy, or pregnancy-related disability, most of her retaliation claims advanced to trial. Denying in part the city’s motion for summary judgment on her claims under the ADA, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act/Title VII, the FMLA, and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), a federal district court found that while the timeline and decisionmakers’ lack of knowledge prevented a finding of bias, triable issues existed as to whether, after her former supervisor learned that she had filed complaints of discrimination following her demotion to a temporary position, the official took steps to ensure decisionmakers did not hire her in a permanent role and rejected her for an alternative position in a different division (Lopez v. City of Tampa, No. 8:23-cv-02548-KKM-LSG (M.D. Fla. Jun. 20, 2025)).

The employee started working for the city in October 2018, and in April 2020 became the senior executive aide for the administrator of infrastructure and mobility. At first, the superior was happy with her work, and in February 2021, provided her with a favorable performance review.

Performance issues begin. However, things deteriorated after the employee began a new romantic relationship in March. The administrator claimed that she became disinterested in her job, was on her cell phone constantly, and didn’t complete her work tasks. In September, she inquired about moving her to a different position, and when an employment services manager advised her about the applicable Civil Service Rules, she responded that she “would explore her options.”

Back pain. The next month, the employee experienced severe back pain and was diagnosed with “severe radiculopathy.” Based on her doctor’s recommendation, the city authorized her to work remotely from November 30 to December 31.

Demotion. Meanwhile, the administrator sought to add a position to the transportation engineering division for her, which to comply with the Civil Service Rules would be temporary at first. On December 30, she learned that she was being reassigned to the temporary role of utility administrative support technician (UAST).

Pregnancy. In early January 2022, she informed her new manager that she was pregnant. A few days later, she went to the hospital and learned that she suffered from “Hyperemesis Gravidarum,” a severe form of morning sickness. Afterwards, the city approved her for pregnancy-related FMLA leave. However, on March 24, she experienced a miscarriage and was hospitalized.

Poor performance review. When she returned to work, she received her annual performance review in which the administrator did not recommend her for a pay increase and stated she had “a pattern of disengagement, disinterest, and distraction.” In the “use of leave” category, the administrator sated, “[s]omewhat excessive tardiness, may have been counseled or given a written warning on this. High incidence of absences on short notice. Excessive use of sick leave, may be on show cause, absences adversely affected unit productivity.”

Complaint and grievance. The employee subsequently filed a complaint in relation to the temporary assignment and a grievance concerning the performance evaluation, claiming they were discriminatory based on her FMLA leave and disabilities. Her new manager claimed that the administrator was “angry” and “appalled,” requested that the employee be terminated, and directed the new manager not to hire her for a permanent position. The administrator also denied her grievance, but after she appealed, the new manager completed a partial review for her, which was neutral.

Rejected for permanent and alternative roles. The administrator also took steps to ensure that the full-time UAST position was posted publicly instead of just internally, including outside of the city. She also allegedly told the head of the interview panel and two panelists not to hire the employee. The panel then ranked her fifth out of eleven finalists and hired the top ranked candidate, which resulted in the employee’s termination.

About the same time, she applied for a payroll position and was one of five final candidates. However, the after reviewing her personnel file and evaluation, the city’s CFO selected another candidate. Her manager for the UAST position testified that the administer had said she would prevent her from getting the job, but the CFO denied having any conversation with her regarding the employee’s application.

No evidence of bias. Significantly, it was undisputed that the administrator sought to reassign the employee before she learned of her disabilities and pregnancy. While the decision was not finalized until later, the record did not suggest her alleged disabilities were a factor, nor was there any evidence suggesting that the city hired another candidate for the permanent position on the basis of her alleged disabilities. While the parties disputed whether the administrator attempted to intervene in the hiring process by reaching out to hiring panel members, there was no evidence suggesting that she did so because of her alleged disabilities. Finally, by that time she was no longer pregnant or otherwise experiencing related medical conditions.

Retaliatory motive. While she also could not show that her demotion was retaliatory since it came three months before her grievance and complaint, a jury could conclude that she was retaliatorily terminated when she was not selected for the permanent UAST position. Pretext could be inferred from evidence that after the administrator learned about her grievance, she told her new manager that she “has got to go,” ensured that the permanent position attracted as many applicants as possible, and allegedly instructed members of the hiring panel to hire someone else. Disputed evidence as to whether she told a manager that the payroll position “will not happen” for the employee also suggested the non-hire decision was retaliatory.

FMLA retaliation. Granting in part the city’s bid for summary judgment on her FMLA retaliation claim, the court found that there was no evidence suggesting a causal connection between her FMLA leave and her demotion or termination. However, a reasonable jury could find that her use of FMLA leave was causally related to her negative performance review, which resulted in her not being recommended for a pay increase. In addition, a jury could find that the poor review was causally related to her failure to receive the payroll technician job since the CFO testified that her performance review was one of the reasons he did not select her for the job and that both the “comments and [the] low scoring” convinced him that she was not the right candidate for the position.

The case is No. 8:23-cv-02548-KKM-LSG.

Judge: Mizelle, K.

Attorneys: Daniela Carrion (The Linesch Firm) for Scarlett Lopez. Erin G. Jackson (Johnson Jackson) for City of Tampa.

Companies: City of Tampa

Cases: Retaliation Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination PregnancyDiscrimination Discharge EmployeeLeave FloridaNews