Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

Disclaimer: The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law. Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the "facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be the true facts.

-------------------------

Gibson v. Old Town Trolley Tours of Washington, D.C., Inc., 160 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. November 12, 1998)

Keywords: Title VII and ADEA (retaliation, former employee)

Introduction: James Gibson sued Old Town Trolley under the ADEA and Title VII for discrimination and for post-employment retaliation. A jury found in favor of Old Town Trolley on the discrimination claims and in favor of Gibson on the post-employment retaliation claim. Old Town Trolley appeals the jury verdict against it. The Fourth Circuit reverses.

Facts: After Gibson was terminated, he sought employment with the Fairfax County school system. Gibson was asked to obtain a reference from Old Town Trolley. On November 17, 1993, Gibson filed a complaint with the EEOC concerning his termination. In December he mailed a county employment reference form to Old Town Trolley.

When he received no response, in March of 1994 he sent a second reference form by certified mail and by fax. The person to whom Gibson addressed the letter was no longer with the company and it was forwarded to a company vice-president, Michael Cates. Cates acknowledges receiving Gibson's cover letter, but says no reference form was with it. He interpreted the cover letter as asking for a narrative reference -- which the company does not provide. Therefore, he simply wrote on the cover letter that the person to whom the letter had been addressed was no longer with the company. Cates was aware of the fact that Gibson had filed an EEOC charge against the company.

Law:

1. The Fourth Circuit reverses the jury verdict because: (1) with respect to the first letter, the record is devoid of evidence that the letter's recipient harbored any retaliatory intent towards Gibson or even knew of his EEOC complaint; and (2) with respect to the second letter, the fact that Cates knew about the EEOC charge is insufficient to establish retaliation. There is no evidence that Cates ever said anything negative about Gibson or that he ever mentioned the EEOC filing.
2. Furthermore, the employment reference form was a narrative form which Old Town Trolley does not respond to anyway. Therefore, the trial evidence does not support an inference that Old Town Trolley would have completed the form if Gibson had not filed his EEOC complaint.
3. Click here to see actual case.