Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital

850 F.3d 1248 (2017)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...

Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

850 F.3d 1248 (2017)

Facts

Jameka Evans (plaintiff) was a security officer at Georgia Regional Hospital (the hospital) (defendant). Evans was a gay woman who did not openly discuss her sexual orientation at work. Evans had a masculine gender presentation: for example, she wore the type of uniform that men usually wore and kept a short haircut. Evans claimed that the hospital’s chief, Charles Moss (defendant) was rude to her, gave her an adverse shift change, and promoted a less-qualified person, Shanika Johnson (defendant) as her supervisor. Evans claimed that Johnson also harassed her. Evans believed that the harassment, unfair promotion, and shift change were designed to target her for termination based on her sexual orientation and gender nonconformity. Evans initiated a human-resources investigation, but the hospital determined that there was no evidence that Evans was singled out or targeted for termination. Evans then filed a pro se Title VII complaint against the hospital, Moss, Johnson, and a human-resources employee (defendants), alleging that Evans experienced discrimination because of her sexual orientation and gender nonconformity and that the hospital retaliated against Evans after she complained to human resources. The federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing Evans’s case, noting that sexual orientation is not a basis for discrimination under Title VII, and finding that Evans’s gender-nonconformity claim was merely another way to claim sexual-orientation discrimination. The district court adopted the magistrate’s findings without further comment and dismissed Evans’s case with prejudice. Evans appealed, and the court appointed Lambda Legal to represent her.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Martinez, J.)

Concurrence (Pryor, J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Rosenbaum, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 28,700 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership