## Facts

- Jacquelyn R. Crawford, an African-American employee of Georgia State University (GSU), worked in human resources and became manager of classification and compensation in 1997.
- Barbara Carroll, a white assistant vice president in HR, became Crawford’s supervisor in 1999; Katherine Johnston, a white vice president, supervised Carroll.
- GSU created a Director of Classification and Employment position, posted it three times, and Crawford applied each time; she was interviewed once and no one was hired.
- Crawford complained internally that Carroll engaged in race discrimination.
- After the complaints, Carroll gave Crawford a negative performance evaluation that rendered Crawford ineligible for a merit-based pay increase.
- Crawford filed an internal complaint and an EEOC charge alleging race discrimination and retaliation.
- A later administrator retroactively increased Crawford’s salary in an effort to resolve the dispute.
- Crawford sued GSU under Title VII for race discrimination and retaliation and sued Carroll and Johnston under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for race discrimination (Equal Protection).
- The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants on all claims, and Crawford appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a negative performance evaluation that affects eligibility for a merit pay increase can constitute a “materially adverse” action for Title VII retaliation under the standard articulated in *Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White*.
2. Whether genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on Crawford’s Title VII race discrimination claim against GSU and her § 1983 Equal Protection race discrimination claim against Carroll under the *McDonnell Douglas* framework.
3. Whether Johnston was entitled to qualified immunity on Crawford’s § 1983 Equal Protection claim.

## Decision

- Reversed summary judgment on Crawford’s Title VII retaliation claim against GSU and remanded.
- Reversed summary judgment on Crawford’s Title VII race discrimination claim against GSU and remanded.
- Reversed summary judgment on Crawford’s § 1983 Equal Protection race discrimination claim against Carroll and remanded.
- Affirmed summary judgment for Johnston on the § 1983 claim on qualified-immunity grounds.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII retaliation covers employer actions that could dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination charge; the action need not be limited to “ultimate” employment decisions.
- A negative performance evaluation may qualify as materially adverse retaliation when it carries direct economic consequences, such as loss of eligibility for a merit-based pay increase.
- At summary judgment, Title VII disparate-treatment claims commonly proceed under *McDonnell Douglas*; if the plaintiff produces evidence that could support a finding of pretext, credibility disputes must be resolved by a factfinder rather than on summary judgment.
- Equal Protection race-discrimination claims under § 1983 generally track the evidentiary analysis used for Title VII intentional discrimination when based on the same alleged conduct.
- Qualified immunity shields an individual official from § 1983 liability unless the plaintiff shows both a constitutional violation and that the unlawfulness was clearly established as applied to the official’s conduct.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that a pay-affecting negative performance review can satisfy Title VII’s retaliation standard after *Burlington Northern* and that factual disputes required trial on Crawford’s Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims and her § 1983 claim against Carroll, while Johnston was protected by qualified immunity.


Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961 (11th Cir. 2008)