Rebecca McCreight worked for AuburnBank in Alabama for more than fifteen years. In 2017, she began reporting directly to a new supervisor who oversaw branch operations. McCreight alleged that her supervisor engaged in repeated acts of gender discrimination, including assigning her additional work without compensation and excluding her from meetings. In 2019, she filed an internal complaint with AuburnBank’s human resources department. Shortly thereafter, McCreight was demoted from branch manager to loan officer and later terminated.
McCreight filed a lawsuit against AuburnBank in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act (EPA). AuburnBank denied liability, asserting that McCreight was terminated for poor performance and failure to meet compliance standards.
AuburnBank moved for summary judgment, arguing that McCreight failed to show evidence of gender bias or pretext for retaliation. The district court granted the motion, holding that McCreight did not identify valid comparators who were treated more favorably and failed to establish a causal connection between her protected activity and termination. The court also dismissed her Equal Pay Act claim, finding that her alleged pay disparity was not supported by admissible evidence.
McCreight appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The Eleventh Circuit examined whether McCreight had presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact on her Title VII and EPA claims. Under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that she engaged in protected activity, suffered an adverse employment action, and that there was a causal link between the two. The court found that McCreight’s internal complaint constituted protected activity and that her demotion and termination qualified as adverse actions.
The court focused on the timing and circumstances surrounding McCreight’s termination. Evidence showed that her demotion occurred only weeks after her complaint and that she had previously received satisfactory performance reviews. The appellate court held that this temporal proximity, combined with testimony from coworkers indicating that the supervisor expressed frustration about McCreight’s complaint, was enough to support an inference of retaliatory motive.
Regarding the Equal Pay Act claim, McCreight presented payroll records showing that two male branch managers earned higher salaries despite similar responsibilities. AuburnBank argued that the pay differences were based on seniority and performance evaluations. The court determined that these justifications created factual disputes requiring a jury’s assessment.
The Eleventh Circuit emphasized that retaliation claims often rely on circumstantial evidence and that temporal proximity can support causation when paired with other indicators of retaliatory intent. It held that the district court improperly required McCreight to produce direct evidence of bias. The appellate court also noted that summary judgment is inappropriate when motive or intent is central to the dispute and the record contains conflicting testimony.
The court found that AuburnBank’s proffered reasons for demotion and termination—alleged compliance violations and leadership deficiencies—were potentially pretextual. McCreight’s positive employment history and lack of prior discipline created credibility questions suitable for a jury. Additionally, the bank’s decision to assign McCreight’s duties to a male colleague immediately after her termination further supported an inference of discrimination.
On July 17, 2024, the Eleventh Circuit reversed in part and remanded. It reinstated McCreight’s Title VII retaliation and Equal Pay Act claims for trial, holding that genuine factual disputes precluded summary judgment. The court affirmed the dismissal of her gender discrimination claim for lack of sufficient comparator evidence. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings on the surviving claims.
If you have experienced workplace discrimination, retaliation, or unequal pay, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC assists with labor and employment cases. Contact our team to learn how we can help you pursue remedies and protect your workplace rights.