Source: cases/42usc1981/f-supp-3d-376-1228-mills-v-cellco-partnership.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_376/1228_01/index.html
To qualify as adverse employment action, "the employer's action must impact the terms, conditions, or privileges of the plaintiff's job in a real and demonstrable way."
So the court concludes that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Ms. Mills suffered adverse employment action by having to work more weekend closing shifts than her coworkers.
As the Eleventh Circuit recently clarified, to be a valid comparator, an employee must be similarly situated "in all material respects" but need not be "nearly identical" to the plaintiff.
the court concludes that Ms. Mills has created an inference of discriminatory intent as to her unfair scheduling claim.
So the court concludes that a jury could not reasonably find that Mr. Gould's repeated racial statements, including approving references to the KKK, were severe and pervasive enough to create hostile work environment under Title VII.
Verizon does not dispute that Ms. Mills has engaged in activity protected under Title VII.
But Ms. Mills's claim that she suffered this adverse employment action because she complained to Mr. Gould must fail; she presented no evidence, direct or circumstantial, showing a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash2 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f-supp-3d/376/1228-01 name Mills v. Cellco Partnership cite 376 F. Supp. 3d 1228 (2019) court United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama date 2019-03-26 url catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_376/1228_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_376.jsonl sha1=62cfee4a0633f7a171cc6ef4db4b69e2aa574dad chars=54713 opinion order : order by Bowdre @0..54713 controlling count scheduling : race-discrimination claim that the Trussville manager scheduled plaintiff and other African American employees for a disproportionate share of weekend closing shifts law 42usc1981 role applied posture civil; Title VII and Section 1981 race discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation claims (analysed together) by a current retail employee; employer's motion for summary judgment denied on the discriminatory-scheduling claim and granted on every other claim (N.D. Ala.) result mixed element protected-person : satisfied [conceded] route race pattern african-american fact @1608..1741 [supports] | Margo Mills, an African American female, has worked at Verizon in retail sales since November 2012 and continues to work for Verizon. element own-contract : satisfied [conceded] route employment-relationship pattern current-retail-sales-employee fact @54..144 [supports] | Margo Mills has worked in retail sales for Defendant Verizon Wireless since November 2012. element contractual-impairment : satisfied [triable] count scheduling route materially-adverse-change pattern disproportionate-weekend-closing-shifts-without-loss-of-pay rule @12425..12593 | To qualify as adverse employment action, "the employer's action must impact the terms, conditions, or privileges of the plaintiff's job in a real and demonstrable way." fact @14549..14740 [supports] | By contrast, Ms. Mills alleges that her manager consistently scheduled her for weekend closing shifts, exhibiting a pattern of discrimination against her and other African American employees. fact @13073..13241 [supports] | Verizon has not pointed to anything in the record conclusively contradicting Ms. Mills's allegations that her manager favored white employees with preferable schedules. fact @15972..16053 [cuts-against] | Though Ms. Mills's allegedly unfavorable schedule did not reduce her compensation held @16454..16646 | So the court concludes that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Ms. Mills suffered adverse employment action by having to work more weekend closing shifts than her coworkers. gloss Scheduling claim only. The same section holds that coachings and unfulfilled threats of discipline were not adverse actions (@17693..18884) and treats denial of management training as an adverse action that Verizon did not dispute (@18885..19592); those theories have no block here. element racial-intent : satisfied [triable] count scheduling route comparator pattern white-coworkers-of-same-rank-under-same-scheduling-manager-and-no-reason-proffered rule @20065..20253 | As the Eleventh Circuit recently clarified, to be a valid comparator, an employee must be similarly situated "in all material respects" but need not be "nearly identical" to the plaintiff. fact @20549..20713 [supports] | The white and African American employees all had the same rank and position and were all under the jurisdiction of the same supervisor who determined the schedules. fact @21801..21892 [cuts-against absent] | while Ms. Mills does not allege that her manager made racial comments related to scheduling fact @24569..24642 [supports] | But Verizon confusingly never proffers any reason for Ms. Mills to rebut. fact @25067..25251 [cuts-against] | Verizon also points out that when Ms. Mills complained to her manager about the unfair schedules, he placed her in charge of scheduling for some period of time no shorter than a month. held @22229..22348 | the court concludes that Ms. Mills has created an inference of discriminatory intent as to her unfair scheduling claim. gloss The court applied Title VII's motivating-factor language to the Section 1981 claim (pre-Comcast); but-for causation is not discussed. On the separate training-denial theory the court held there was no evidence of racial motive (@22349..23373); no block. element hostile-environment : not-satisfied [no-evidence] route _whole pattern frequent-racial-remarks-by-manager-with-one-conversation-approving-of-the-klan-held-not-severe rule @26965..27175 [quoted] | "Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment-an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive-is beyond Title VII's purview." fact @28039..28174 [supports] | Ms. Mills alleges her manager in Trussville, Kerry Gould, subjected her to daily racial remarks and negative treatment throughout 2014. fact @31418..31533 [supports] | her coworkers at the relevant times echo the allegation that Mr. Gould frequently made racially offensive comments. fact @32546..32711 [cuts-against] | But Ms. Mills's testified that both of Mr. Gould's comments about the KKK occurred during a single conversation, very early in her time working under his management. fact @32994..33173 [cuts-against] | Ms. Mills also specifically testified that she did not feel physically threatened at the time Mr. Gould made these comments but rather "felt hurt [she] was working with a racist." held @35292..35525 | So the court concludes that a jury could not reasonably find that Mr. Gould's repeated racial statements, including approving references to the KKK, were severe and pervasive enough to create hostile work environment under Title VII. element protected-activity : satisfied [conceded] route _whole pattern complaints-to-manager-and-formal-email-to-human-resources-about-racial-comments-and-scheduling fact @41495..41702 [supports] | Ms. Mills made her first formal complaint to Verizon's Human Resources department on December 18, 2014, when she emailed her complaints about Mr. Gould's alleged racial comments and discriminatory treatment. held @36616..36706 | Verizon does not dispute that Ms. Mills has engaged in activity protected under Title VII. element retaliatory-causation : not-satisfied [no-evidence] route _whole pattern no-comparison-with-non-complainers-no-increase-after-complaint-and-no-temporal-link fact @38849..39050 [supports] | Ms. Mills alleges she complained to Mr. Gould several times throughout 2014 that he unfairly scheduled her and other black employees for a disproportionate number of undesirable weekend closing shifts. fact @39853..40117 [cuts-against absent] | While Ms. Mills indicated that African Americans, herself included, received more undesirable shifts than white employees, she never alleged or testified that she received more undesirable shifts than employees who had never complained about racial discrimination. fact @40228..40349 [cuts-against] | In fact, Mr. Gould initially responded to her scheduling complaints by placing her in charge of scheduling for the store. fact @46683..46864 [cuts-against] | The language of the coachings indicates that specific interactions with customers prompted the alleged threats of discipline, rather than Ms. Mills's engaging in protected activity. held @39588..39852 | But Ms. Mills's claim that she suffered this adverse employment action because she complained to Mr. Gould must fail; she presented no evidence, direct or circumstantial, showing a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. gloss The retaliation claim failed chiefly on causation (shifts, training, threats of discipline). The court also held the coachings and the miscoded-leave, shift-swap and scrutiny incidents not materially adverse (@44049..44424, @47451..48011) and accepted threats of discipline as potentially adverse (@45564..46196); retaliatory-adversity has no block.