Griffith v. Nicholas Fin., Inc.

Decision Date30 September 2016
Docket NumberCase No.: 5:14-cv-02330-MHH
Citation214 F.Supp.3d 1215
Parties Krysti GRIFFITH, Plaintiff, v. NICHOLAS FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

Adam M. Porter, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.

Brian R. Bostick, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Birmingham, AL, Keith D. Frazier, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Nashville, TN, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Krysti Griffith is a former employee of defendant Nicholas Financial, Inc. Ms. Griffith has systematic lupus erythematosus, an autoimmune disease commonly called lupus. Ms. Griffith worked for Nicholas Financial as a customer service representative in Nicholas Financial's Huntsville, Alabama office. Ms. Griffith last worked for Nicholas Financial on January 30, 2014. Plaintiff Ms. Griffith claims that Nicholas Financial terminated her employment because the company did not want to accommodate the complications of her lupus. Nicholas Financial maintains that Ms. Griffith's employment ended because of her insubordination and poor attitude. In this lawsuit, Ms. Griffith asserts claims against Nicholas Financial under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Nicholas Financial asks the Court to enter judgment in its favor on Ms. Griffith's ADA claim. (Doc. 22). For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the motion for summary judgment.

I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). To demonstrate that there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact that precludes summary judgment, a party opposing a motion for summary judgment must cite "to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). "The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).

When considering a summary judgment motion, the Court must view the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. White v. Beltram Edge Tool Supply, Inc. , 789 F.3d 1188, 1191 (11th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the Court presents the facts in this opinion in the light most favorable to Ms. Griffith. See White , 789 F.3d at 1191 ; see also Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach , 707 F.3d 1244, 1252 (11th Cir. 2013) ("[W]hen conflicts arise between the facts evidenced by the parties, [courts] must credit the nonmoving party's version.").

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Ms. Griffith worked for Nicholas Financial for nearly two years. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 7–8; 38–40). In fact, Ms. Griffith was the longest-serving employee at Nicholas Financial's Huntsville branch. (Doc. 20-5, p. 29). Jerry Hudgins, Regional Vice President at Nicholas Financial, regarded Ms. Griffith as "a benefit to the team," (see doc. 20-7, p. 6), and two months before Ms. Griffith's last day at Nicholas Financial, Mr. Hudgins told Ms. Griffith that she performed "great" for the company. (Doc. 20-2, p. 26). In addition, Susan Burek, Director of Human Resources at Nicholas Financial, acknowledged that Ms. Griffith had been "extremely loyal to the branch." (Doc. 20-7, p. 9).

As a customer service representative, Ms. Griffith handled delinquent customer accounts; completed state audits and other reports; filed documents; interviewed and approved customers; interacted with dealers; and opened and closed the Huntsville office. (Doc. 20-1, p. 13; Doc. 20-2, p. 19). According to Ms. Griffith, she "loved [her] job" at Nicholas Financial, and she "would [have] never quit there." (Doc. 20-3, p. 5).

Ms. Griffith contends that Nicholas Financial forced her to leave her job because of her lupus. Lupus is a systematic autoimmune disorder that affects the central nervous system and is incurable.1 Lupus is unpredictable; it has periods of dormancy and periods of flare. During a temporary flare, lupus may cause fever, weakness, mouth sores, headaches, migraines, body aches, fatigue, skin lesions, and inflammation. (See Doc. 20-1, p. 11). Exposure to ultraviolet or fluorescent lighting, sunlight, and stress can trigger a lupus flare for Ms. Griffith. (Doc. 20-1, p. 12). Ms. Griffith's co-workers at Nicholas Financial knew that she suffers from lupus. (See, e.g. , Doc. 20-1, p. 17; Doc. 20-3, p. 14–15).2

Branch manager Stuart Whitaker learned that Ms. Griffith had lupus soon after he joined Nicholas Financial. (Doc. 20-3, p. 14). Nicholas Financial hired Mr. Whitaker on October 28, 2013. (Doc. 20-3, p. 12). During his first week on the job, when Mr. Whitaker tried to replace a fluorescent light above Ms. Griffith's desk, Ms. Griffith instructed him not to repair the broken light because she feared that she could have a lupus flare as a result of exposure to fluorescent lighting. (Doc. 20-1, p. 16–17; Doc. 20-3, p. 14). She explained to Mr. Whitaker that dimly-lit conditions were "better for [her] because" of her "lupus."3 (Doc. 20-1, p. 16–17; Doc. 20-3, p. 14). Mr. Whitaker acknowledges that Ms. Griffith told him that "brightness...bother[ed] her." (Doc. 20-3, p.14). Ms. Griffith asserts that Mr. Whitaker asked how often she had lupus flares; she responded that her lupus flares were also triggered by stress. (Doc. 20-1, p. 40; Doc. 20-2, p. 53). Mr. Whitaker did not replace the light above Ms. Griffith's desk, and she worked in a dim workspace until late December 2013. (Doc. 20-1, p. 17).

Before Mr. Whitaker joined Nicholas Financial, Mr. Hudgins had considered promoting Ms. Griffith to assistant branch manager at Nicholas Financial's Huntsville location. (Doc. 20-2, pp. 16, 22; Doc. 20-7, p. 5). Just after Mr. Whitaker became branch manager, Mr. Hudgins directed Mr. Whitaker to give Ms. Griffith "a working interview" for the promotion. (Doc. 20-2, p. 22). According to Ms. Griffith, Mr. Hudgins stated to her that she could "totally get promoted," and that he had "no issue" with it. (Doc. 20-1, p. 21; Doc. 20-2, p. 22). To demonstrate her ability, Ms. Griffith wanted to conduct face-to-face meetings with clients "to drum up new business." (Doc. 20-3, p. 13; Doc. 20-1, p. 20). Ms. Griffith maintains that Mr. Whitaker denied her opportunities to show that she was qualified for a promotion. (Doc. 20-3, p. 13; Doc. 20-1, p. 20). In fact, according to Ms. Griffith, in early November 2013, Mr. Whitaker informed her that he had already made plans to hire someone else as assistant branch manager. (Doc. 20-1, p. 23). As a result, Ms. Griffith emailed Mr. Hudgins and withdrew her interest in the position. (Doc. 20-2, p. 26). Ms. Griffith did not feel that she would "have a fair chance at proving [herself]." (Doc. 20-2, p. 26).

In the weeks that followed, Mr. Whitaker felt that Ms. Griffith's attitude "turned sour." (Doc. 20-3, pp. 12–13). Mr. Whitaker and Brandi Adams, the Nicholas Financial district manager who supervised Mr. Whitaker, testified that they had to have conversations with Ms. Griffith about her attitude. (Doc. 20-3, pp. 17–22; Doc. 20-4, p. 14; Doc. 20-7, pp. 7–13). During one conversation in which Mr. Whitaker reprimanded Ms. Griffith for her attitude, Mr. Whitaker "followed [her] outside" and "yell[ed] at [her]." (Doc. 20-1, p. 23).

In late December 2013, Nicholas Financial hired Johnny Latapie to serve as the assistant branch manager at the Huntsville location. (Doc. 20-3, pp. 13–14). To make room for Mr. Latapie, Mr. Whitaker asked Ms. Griffith to move to a new desk in the front of the office. (Doc. 20-3, p. 14). Ms. Griffith alleges that she informed Mr. Whitaker that she did not want to move to the front of the office because she worried that the sunlight that the front desk received would set off a lupus flare. (Doc. 20-1, p. 24).

Ms. Griffith contacted Human Resources at Nicholas Financial to complain about the move, explaining that transitioning to a desk surrounded by sunlight "[is] going to cause a flare-up with the lupus." (Doc. 20-1, p. 25–26). Mr. Whitaker maintains that he asked Ms. Griffith to move because he "need[ed] to have [his] Assistant Manager in training next to [him]." (Doc. 20-7, p. 11). Ms. Griffith testified that Ms. Adams was "mad at [her] because [she had] called [Human Resources]," and that Ms. Adams instructed Ms. Griffith never to "call anybody other than her" with complaints. (Doc. 20-1, p. 26). Ultimately, Mr. Whitaker told Ms. Griffith, "It's not up to [you]""[your] desk [will] be moved." (Doc. 20-1, p. 25). Ms. Griffith complied with Mr. Whitaker's orders. (Doc. 20-1, p. 25).

On January 14, 2014, Mr. Whitaker evaluated Ms. Griffith's work performance. (Doc. 20-1, p. 30; Doc. 20-2, pp. 32–38). The evaluation scale is as follows:

5: Job performance is far beyond expectations
4: Job performance exceeds expectations
3: Job performance meets expectations
2: Job performance is below expectations
1: Job performance is unacceptable

(Doc. 20-2, p. 32). The performance review is divided into seven broad categories and sixty-one sub-categories. (Doc. 20-2, p. 32). These categories include attitude; acceptance of constructive criticism; interactions with dealers, customers, and coworkers; and communication of problems to staff and management. (Doc. 20-4, pp. 34–40). Ms. Griffith received an overall average score of "4.667." (Doc. 20-2, pp. 32–38). Mr. Whitaker gave Ms. Griffith ten 3s; twenty-two 4s; twenty-eight 5s; and one "N/A." (Doc. 20-2, pp. 32–38). Ms. Griffith received no unacceptable ratings. (Doc. 20-3, p. 19). Mr. Whitaker testified that he was aware of the performance evaluation scale when he assessed Ms. Griffith's performance. (Doc. 20-3, p....

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Perez v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • September 30, 2016
  • Ivey v. Savannah-Chatham Pub. Schs.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • August 11, 2021
    ...that “poor job performance” and “insubordination” were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for terminating an employee); Griffith, 214 F.Supp.3d at 1227 (“[I]nsubordination is a legitimate, basis for termination ....”); Corning v. LodgeNet Interactive Corp., 896 F.Supp.2d 1138, 1150 (M.D......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT