Job Abandonment Was Effective Defense to Wrongful Discharge Claim

​An employee whose employer thought she had left her job and moved to another city because it appeared that she had cleaned out her desk and removed all of her personal items lost her claims of unlawful termination. The plaintiff failed to respond to three attempts to communicate with her about the possibility of returning to work.

The plaintiff began working for American Credit in June 2013, first as a collector and later as a lost mitigation specialist. She claimed that on Aug. 24, 2015, she woke up feeling ill and allegedly called to notify American Credit that she would be in on Aug. 26. At the time of the absence, she had accrued leave available to her.

The next day, she received a letter from HR, sent on Aug. 24, stating that she had been terminated because of job abandonment and asking her to contact HR by Aug. 26 if there were any extenuating circumstances. The plaintiff did not do so, instead sending an e-mail to her supervisor on Aug. 31 claiming that her termination was discriminatory. The supervisor immediately responded and asked the plaintiff to contact her, which she did not.

A few days later, the supervisor again e-mailed the plaintiff asking her if she wanted to return to work, and the plaintiff again did not respond. Subsequently, she filed suit, contending that her termination was discriminatory on the basis of race and national origin because other employees without sufficient paid time off called in sick and were either accommodated or written up for an unexcused absence.

In support of her contention that the reason given for her termination was false, she claimed, among other things, that American Credit should have confirmed that she in fact had moved to another city and should not have relied on employees' belief that her move was evidenced by her not having any personal items on her desk.

[SHRM members-only toolkit: Involuntary Termination of Employment in the United States]

In rejecting these arguments, the court observed that there was no evidence the decision-maker was aware that she normally did not have personal items on her desk. It also observed that there was no evidence the plaintiff ever took any opportunity to contact American Credit to correct the assumption.

In fact, the plaintiff admitted that she did not respond to any of the attempts to contact her about the basis for the decision. As a result, her claims were rejected by the court on summary judgment as she had not shown that American Credit's reason for termination was pretextual.

Massaquoi v. American Credit Acceptance, D. S.C., No. 7:16-cv-02220-BHH (Aug. 31, 2018).

Professional Pointer: Although the employer acted on the assumption that the plaintiff was leaving her position and moving, it was careful to provide her with several opportunities to explain why that assumption was wrong. Because she failed to take advantage of those opportunities to correct the good-faith assumption, the employer was entitled to rely on it in defeating the discrimination claims.

Douglas H. Duerr is an attorney with Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson LLP, the Worklaw® Network member firm in Atlanta.