## Facts

- Twanetta Rollins worked for Cone Distributing, Inc., a beverage distribution company, as a probationary warehouse employee at Cone’s Tallahassee facility.
- Rollins’s job involved warehouse work connected to loading and unloading bulk beverage products on Cone trucks.
- Rollins’s employment lasted about 45 days, during which Cone supervisors and managers reported she was difficult to train and had problems working with others.
- During her probationary period, Rollins raised workplace complaints, including complaints about coworker cooperation and workload distribution.
- Cone placed Rollins into commercial driver’s license (CDL) training during her probationary employment.
- Cone’s training personnel and management reported that Rollins was not receptive to instruction during training and was argumentative or combative.
- Cone ended Rollins’s employment before completion of the probationary period, citing problems with performance, following instructions, and interpersonal conduct (including during CDL training).
- Rollins sued Cone for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA).
- During discovery, Rollins took eight depositions, including Cone’s administrative vice president, who testified about Rollins’s alleged training and performance problems and the termination decision.
- Cone produced personnel files for three male employees Rollins identified as possible comparators.
- Rollins moved to compel additional discovery, including (a) personnel files for every employee who had held her position, (b) a second deposition of the administrative vice president (arguing he was unprepared during the first deposition), and (c) additional interrogatory answers and documents about the reasons for her termination, including notes from a specific meeting and documents on internal discrimination policies or procedures.
- The district court ordered production of the meeting notes but otherwise denied the additional discovery as exceeding the needs of the case and duplicating what Rollins had already obtained.
- The district court granted Cone summary judgment, concluding Rollins lacked evidence that Cone’s stated reasons were a pretext for sex discrimination or retaliation; Rollins appealed the discovery rulings and summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Rollins’s motions to compel additional discovery, including companywide personnel files, a second deposition of Cone’s administrative vice president, and expanded interrogatory/document production.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on Rollins’s Title VII and FCRA sex discrimination claim because Cone articulated legitimate reasons for termination and Rollins failed to create a jury issue on pretext.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on Rollins’s Title VII and FCRA retaliation claim because Rollins failed to show the termination was retaliatory (including failure to show pretext after Cone offered non-retaliatory reasons).

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying most of Rollins’s motions to compel because the additional requests were disproportionate and duplicative given the discovery already produced (including eight depositions and comparator personnel files for three identified male employees).
- The district court acted within its discretion by compelling production of the specific meeting notes but refusing broader requests such as personnel files for every person who held Rollins’s position and a second deposition of the administrative vice president.
- Summary judgment for Cone on the sex discrimination claim was affirmed because Cone produced evidence of legitimate reasons for termination tied to Rollins’s performance, failure to follow instructions, and interpersonal problems, and Rollins did not present sufficient evidence that those reasons were false or that sex bias was the real reason.
- Summary judgment for Cone on the retaliation claim was affirmed because Cone identified non-retaliatory reasons for termination, and Rollins did not present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find those reasons were a cover for retaliation.

## Legal Principles

- Discovery rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal generally requires a showing that the ruling caused substantial harm to the party’s ability to present its case.
- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, courts may limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or not proportional to the needs of the case considering the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, and the burden relative to the likely benefit.
- Title VII and FCRA discrimination and retaliation claims are evaluated under the same general framework; absent direct evidence, courts commonly apply the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting method.
- Once an employer articulates legitimate, non-discriminatory or non-retaliatory reasons for an adverse action, the plaintiff must present evidence allowing a reasonable jury to find those reasons are pretextual—meaning both that they are not the true reasons and that unlawful discrimination or retaliation is the true reason.
- For retaliation, the plaintiff must show protected activity, a materially adverse action, and a causal connection; after the employer offers non-retaliatory reasons, the plaintiff must show the protected activity was the determinative cause of the adverse action.
- Broad comparator discovery may be limited where the plaintiff already has access to targeted comparator evidence and the additional requested files are not shown to be necessary to resolve whether the employer’s stated reasons were pretextual.
- A plaintiff’s disagreement with an employer’s assessment, or speculation about bias, does not by itself create a triable fact issue on pretext without evidence that the employer’s stated reasons were not honestly relied upon.

## Conclusion

Rollins held a probationary warehouse position for about 45 days and was terminated after managers reported she was hard to train and had performance and conduct problems, including during CDL training; she sued for sex discrimination and retaliation but, after obtaining substantial discovery, sought broader personnel-file production and a second executive deposition that the district court largely denied as duplicative and disproportionate, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed both those discovery limits and summary judgment because Cone offered legitimate reasons for termination and Rollins failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find those reasons were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation.


Rollins v. Cone Distributing, Inc., 710 Fed. Appx. 814 (2017)