Johnson v. Great Expressions Dental Centers of Florida, P.A.
Docket: No. 3D13-794
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 7, 2014; Florida; State Appellate Court
Cynethia L. Johnson appeals a trial court's summary judgment favoring Great Expressions Dental Centers of Florida, P.A. (GEDC) regarding her wrongful termination claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Johnson was hired in April 2009 as a patient coordinator but had a contentious relationship with her supervisor, Dr. Jessica Papir, leading to disputes with coworkers and patients. Following two formal warnings, she was terminated in December 2009 for tardiness, inappropriate attire, and a negative attitude.
Johnson alleges her termination was racially motivated, citing the refusal of her supervisor to transfer her and noting that three of the four black employees at her office were either terminated or quit in 2009. Under the FCRA, which parallels Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, a wrongful termination claim can be established through either direct or circumstantial evidence. Johnson's claim relies solely on circumstantial evidence, requiring her to meet the four prongs of the McDonnell Douglas framework: belonging to a protected class, qualification for the job, experiencing an adverse action, and showing that similarly situated employees outside her class were treated more favorably.
The court concludes that the first three prongs are satisfied and focuses on whether Johnson demonstrated a comparator of another race that received more favorable treatment. Without meeting this fourth prong, Johnson's claim cannot survive summary judgment.
Johnson identified Ms. Colls, a white GEDC employee from a different location, as a comparator for her racial discrimination claim under the McDonnell Douglas framework. Johnson argued that both she and Colls reported to the same regional supervisor and that Colls received two written warnings without facing termination. However, the court emphasized that a valid comparator must be "similarly situated in all relevant respects." The court determined that Colls was not a suitable comparator due to differences in their immediate supervisors, the nature and timing of their offenses, and Colls' acceptance of responsibility for her actions. Johnson faced frequent complaints from patients and coworkers regarding her conduct, including a shouting match with a patient, and demonstrated poor overall performance despite multiple warnings. In contrast, Colls had been disciplined for clerical errors over several years, had no patient complaints, and maintained good relations with coworkers, showing a willingness to improve. Consequently, the court concluded that Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, as Colls was not an adequate comparator. Johnson also claimed that the McDonnell Douglas framework is not the only method to prove discrimination, referencing recent federal decisions that allow for establishing a prima facie case through circumstantial evidence if a suitable comparator is lacking. However, the court maintained that meeting the McDonnell Douglas criteria remains a significant standard in discrimination cases.
The plaintiff's inability to provide a comparator does not automatically negate her case. She can withstand summary judgment if she offers circumstantial evidence that raises a triable issue regarding the employer's discriminatory intent. A triable issue arises if the evidence, viewed favorably for the plaintiff, forms a credible basis for a jury to infer intentional discrimination. Johnson claims she can survive summary judgment by presenting a "convincing mosaic" of circumstantial evidence suggesting her termination was racially motivated. The applicability of the "convincing mosaic" test as an alternative to the McDonnell Douglas framework remains unresolved in federal law, with only the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits adopting it. However, even in these circuits, its application has varied. Notably, no Florida court has recognized this standard.
Regardless, Johnson fails under both the "convincing mosaic" standard and the McDonnell Douglas framework. Evidence shows that only one other African American employee was terminated at her location, while others left voluntarily, and the turnover rate in her position was high. Johnson could not transfer because available positions required bilingual skills, which she lacked. Consequently, she did not establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, leading to the trial court correctly granting GEDC's summary judgment motion on her FCRA wrongful termination claim. Even if she had made a prima facie case, GEDC provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her termination, including patient complaints about her service and issues with her conduct, which Johnson did not successfully challenge as pretextual. Thus, the trial court's decision was affirmed.
