Andrea Gogel v. Kia Motors Manufacturing of Georgia, Inc.
904 F.3d 1226 (2018)
Rule of Law:
A human resources employee who assists another employee in filing an EEOC charge engages in protected activity under Title VII's opposition clause if the manner of opposition is reasonable, which is determined by balancing the employer's interests against Title VII's purposes, especially where the employer's internal complaint procedures have proven ineffective.
Facts:
- In 2008, Kia Motors hired Andrea Gogel as Team Relations Manager, a human resources role responsible for investigating employee complaints.
- Another Kia employee, Diana Ledbetter, made multiple complaints to Gogel from 2008-2010 about sexist treatment and an alleged inappropriate relationship involving Kia's president.
- Gogel's superiors instructed her not to investigate Ledbetter's complaint about the president, and later ordered her to stop a secret, limited investigation and destroy her notes.
- Gogel also complained internally that she was denied a promotion to 'Head of Department' due to her gender and American national origin, but her complaints were dismissed.
- In November 2010, after years of internal complaints from herself and Ledbetter being ignored, Gogel filed an EEOC charge for discrimination.
- Shortly thereafter, Gogel provided Ledbetter with the name of an attorney she was considering for her own case.
- In December 2010, Ledbetter filed her own EEOC charge against Kia.
- Believing Gogel had solicited Ledbetter's charge in violation of her job duties, Kia fired Gogel in January 2011.
Procedural Posture:
- Andrea Gogel filed a complaint in state court against Kia Motors alleging discriminatory and retaliatory termination.
- Kia removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
- Kia filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims, and Gogel filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on her retaliation claims.
- A Magistrate Judge recommended granting Kia's motion for summary judgment and denying Gogel's motion.
- The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting summary judgment in favor of Kia.
- Gogel, as appellant, appealed the District Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, where Kia was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a human resources manager's assistance to another employee filing an EEOC charge constitute protected activity under Title VII's opposition clause, even if the employer considers such assistance a violation of the manager's job duties?
Opinions:
Majority - Martin, J.
Yes. A human resources manager's assistance to another employee filing an EEOC charge is a protected activity under Title VII when the manner of that assistance is reasonable. The court applies a balancing test, weighing the purpose of Title VII against the employer's legitimate demands for loyalty and cooperation. Here, Gogel's conduct was reasonable because she had repeatedly attempted to use Kia's internal procedures to address both her own and Ledbetter's discrimination complaints for years, but those procedures were consistently ineffective and actively thwarted by management. Only after the internal framework proved insufficient did Gogel provide minimal assistance to Ledbetter. This deviation from her job duties furthered the purpose of Title VII without disrupting any genuine effort by Kia at voluntary compliance.
Dissenting - Carnes, J.
No. The manager's conduct was not protected because it was a per se unreasonable violation of her essential job duties. A human resources manager, whose core function is to resolve disputes internally and protect the company from litigation, renders herself ineffective by soliciting another employee to sue the company. Such conduct directly contravenes the employer's legitimate demands for loyalty and performance of essential job functions. The majority's approach creates an unworkable standard that requires courts to second-guess an employer's internal grievance handling before determining if an HR employee is free to violate her core responsibilities.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that human resources personnel are not exempt from Title VII's anti-retaliation protections and establishes that their 'oppositional' conduct is evaluated under a reasonableness balancing test, not a per se rule. The ruling emphasizes that the failure of an employer's internal grievance process is a key factor in determining whether an HR employee's decision to support an external complaint is reasonable. This precedent may encourage employers to ensure their internal complaint mechanisms are robust and effective, as a failure to do so could justify HR employees assisting others in filing external charges without losing their statutory protection against retaliation.
