U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Case Status


Docket Number

Oral Argument Date

May 17, 2018


Case Updates


July 29, 2020

The en banc Eleventh Circuit holds as a matter of law that employer did not violate Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision by firing a human resources professional for encouraging another employee to sue the company for discrimination. The U.S. Chamber filed amicus briefs supporting this result at the panel and en banc stages.

U.S. Chamber urges en banc Eleventh Circuit to hold that a company did not violate Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision by terminating a human-resource employee for fomenting litigation against the company

September 26, 2019

Click here to view the Chamber’s amicus brief.

Carson H. Sullivan, Neal D. Mollen, and Sara Pruzin Turk of Paul Hastings LLP served as co-counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.

Rehearing en banc granted

June 17, 2019

The Eleventh Circuit granted rehearing en banc and vacated the prior opinion.


September 24, 2018

By a 2-1 vote, the Eleventh Circuit held that an employer violated Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision by firing an HR professional—whose job duties included internal resolution of equal-opportunity disputes—because she had encouraged another employee to file a charge with the EEOC instead of attempting internal resolution.

U.S. Chamber urges Eleventh Circuit to uphold proper scope of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision

May 03, 2017

The U.S. Chamber filed an amicus brief in an Eleventh Circuit case involving the application of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision to certain conduct by human resources professionals. Plaintiff, a human resource professional whose role was to resolve employee disputes short of litigation, began referring co-workers to a lawyer so they could file discrimination charges against the company. The company terminated her, concluding that plaintiff’s encouragement of litigation by other employees against the company left her unable to perform a core function of her job. Plaintiff brought a retaliation claim under Title VII, arguing that her demonstrated inability to perform her job duties should be not be considered when determining whether such conduct is protected by the statute.

The Chamber’s brief argued that such a rule is incompatible with the statute’s causation requirement, which prohibits employers from taking material adverse actions against employees “because” she opposes an employment practice unlawful under Title VII, but does not prevent employers from discharging an employee based on the unreasonable manner in which she opposes unlawful practices. Further, the brief explained that the rule urged by plaintiff and the EEOC would not only destabilize settled law both inside and outside the Eleventh Circuit, but would also threaten the aims of Title VII by undermining cooperation and voluntary compliance, as well as the goal that litigation should be a last resort—interests of tremendous significance to the American business community.

Neal D. Mollen, Carson H. Sullivan, and Jane M. Brittan of Paul Hastings LLP served as counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.

Case Documents