Joseph v. Columbus Bank Trust Co.

9 Citing cases

  1. Brown v. Davis

    No. 15-15693 (11th Cir. Apr. 11, 2017)   Cited 3 times

    Hence, to "quarrel[] with the wisdom of that reason" for termination, and analyze whether or not the decision to terminate an officer after such an arrest is prudent or justified, would be overstepping the bounds of judicial review. Joseph v. Columbus Bank & Trust Co., 447 F. App'x 110, 112 (11th Cir. 2011) (unpublished). Defendant Davis provided unrebutted testimony that, over the course of his twenty year LCPD career, no other LCPD officer who was arrested for a felony remained employed by the LCPD following such an arrest.

  2. Griffin v. Gen. Elec. Aviation

    545 F. Supp. 3d 1232 (M.D. Ala. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    It is well established in the Eleventh Circuit that unexcused absenteeism is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for discharging an employee. See, e.g.,Word v. AT&T , 576 F. App'x 908, 913 (11th Cir. 2014) ; Joseph v. Columbus Bank & Tr. Co. , 447 F. App'x 110, 113 (11th Cir. 2011) ; Crawford v. Chao , 158 F. App'x 216, 219 (11th Cir. 2005). Here, Defendant explains that it terminated Plaintiff for incurring unexcused absences while on DML. Griffin Dep. Ex. 3 (Doc. 40-1) p. 3.

  3. Griffin v. Gen. Elec. Aviation

    Case No. 3:19-cv-304-WKW-SMD (M.D. Ala. Jun. 4, 2021)

    It is well established in the Eleventh Circuit that unexcused absenteeism is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for discharging an employee. See, e.g., Word v. AT&T, 576 Fed.Appx. 908, 913 (11th Cir. 2014); Joseph v. Columbus Bank & Tr. Co., 447 Fed.Appx. 110, 113 (11th Cir. 2011); Crawford v. Chao, 158 Fed.Appx. 216, 219 (11th Cir. 2005). Here, Defendant explains that it terminated Plaintiff for incurring unexcused absences while on DML. Griffin Dep. Ex. 3 (Doc. 40-1) p. 3.

  4. Brownfield v. City of Lake City

    Case No. 3:16-cv-1433-J-34JRK (M.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2018)

    Moreover, "an employee must meet the employer's stated reason 'head on and rebut it, and [the employee] cannot succeed by simply quarreling with the wisdom of that reason.'" Joseph v. Columbus Bank and Trust Co., 447 F. App'x 110, 112 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Alvarez, 610 F.3d at 1266)). This Brownfield has not done. It is undisputed that Brownfield was arrested, and she points to no evidence suggesting that a reasonable employer would not find the arrest of a police officer warranted termination.

  5. Brown v. Davis

    Case No. 3:13-cv-915-J-34MCR (M.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2015)

    Moreover, "an employee must meet the employer's stated reason 'head on and rebut it, and [the employee] cannot succeed by simply quarreling with the wisdom of that reason.'" Joseph v. Columbus Bank and Trust Co., 447 F. App'x 110, 112 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Alvarez, 610 F.3d at 1266)). This Brown has not done.

  6. Carter v. Donahoe

    Case No: 8:13-cv-2337-T-30AEP (M.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    In her Memorandum in Opposition, Carter generally contests the Postal Service's characterization of her work, and makes a blanket denial that she engaged in improper conduct or failed to follow instructions, but she does not rebut the specific incidents referenced in the Emergency Placement or Notice of Removal. See Joseph v. Columbus Bank and Trust Co., 447 F. App'x. 110, 112 (11th Cir. 2011) ("Ultimately, an employee must meet the employer's stated reason 'head on and rebut it' and [she] cannot succeed by simply quarreling with the wisdom of that reason.") (quoting Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1253, 1266 (11th Cir. 2010)). Generally speaking, Carter routinely states in her deposition that she was harassed and targeted for poor treatment, but consistently responded "I don't know" and "I don't remember" to many of the questions requesting specific details.

  7. Whitehurst v. Liquid Envtl. Solutions, Inc.

    45 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (M.D. Fla. 2014)   Cited 12 times

    “Ultimately, an employee must meet the employer's stated reason ‘head on and rebut it, and [the employee] cannot succeed by simply quarreling with the wisdom of that reason.’ ” Joseph v. Columbus Bank and Trust Co., 447 Fed.Appx. 110, 112 (11th Cir.2011) (quoting Alvarez, 610 F.3d at 1266 ). Significantly, “where the employer produces ... documentary evidence of misconduct ..., an employee's assertions of his own good performance are insufficient to defeat summary judgment, in the absence of other evidence.”

  8. Stanislas v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc.

    Case No. 3:12-cv-695-J-34JRK (M.D. Fla. Jul. 7, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    More importantly, the fact that Stanislas received a mostly positive review for the months of April through September of 2009 does not create a question of fact as to whether Stanislas was transferred to customer service based on her race. Stanislas's inability to interact appropriately with pharmacy manages constitutes a non-discriminatory reason for her transfer. Her suggestion that the October Evaluation contradicts the sincerity of that motivation does not rebut Publix's reasoning "head-on," as she must to successfully oppose summary judgment. See Joseph v. Columbus Bank & Trust Co., 447 F. App'x 110, 112 (11th Cir. 2011). At most, her arguments constitute second-guessing Publix's management decisions.

  9. Hazel v. Monarch Windows & Doors, LLC

    1:10-CV-2113-KOB (N.D. Ala. May. 17, 2012)

    A reason is not pretext for discrimination unless Mr. Hazel can show both that Monarch's reason was false and discrimination was the real reason. See Joseph v. ColumbusBank and Trust Co., 447 Fed. Appx. 110, 112 (citing St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 409 U.S. 502, 515 (1993)). Mr. Hazel must meet Monarch's stated reason head on and rebut it; "[he] cannot succeed by simply quarreling with the wisdom of that reason."