Tulloch v. Regions Bank

SHARON TULLOCH, Plaintiff, v. REGIONS BANK, Defendant.

CASE NO. 9:17-CV-81024-ROSENBERG/REINHART

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

August 17, 2018

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's joint Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 29]. The motion has been fully briefed.¹ For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.

This is a case involving fraud. More specifically, this is a case where an employee at a bank was induced to transfer money out of a customer's account and then, after the fraud was discovered, the employee was fired. Subsequent to being fired, the employee filed this suit, alleging that her termination was for discriminatory reasons and was not due to the aforementioned fraud.

I. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS²

Plaintiff is a black female who previously worked for the Defendant, Regions Bank. DE 28 at 1. Plaintiff's job responsibilities included communications with customers regarding their transactions, including customer requests for cashier's checks. Id. Plaintiff could receive requests for cashier's checks, and could authorize that checks be issued, but she could not prepare the actualchecks. Id. Instead, Plaintiff had to request that a bank teller prepare cashier's checks. Id. Because Plaintiff's job required her to develop personal relationships with customers, it was important that Plaintiff avoid fraud when undertaking transactions by ensuring that she was dealing with the actual customer, and not an imposter. Id.

In April of 2016, Plaintiff received a copy of Region's Fraud-Prevention Policy. Id. at 2. That Policy stated that when a customer sent an e-mail requesting a transaction, the customer should be present in the branch to authenticate the identity of the customer prior to effecting the transaction. Id. The Policy also stated that the failure to follow the Policy could result in disciplinary action. Id. At no time has Regions ever permitted employees to receive an e-mail direction from a customer to issue a cashier's check and issue such check by mail without having authenticated the identity of the customer in person or, at a minimum, telephonically. Id.

On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff received an e-mail request for a $10,000 wire transfer. DE 28-2 at 97. The identity of the requestor has been redacted in the court file, so the Court refers to the requestor as the "Imposter Customer." Plaintiff responded to the Imposter Customer by telling him that a wire transfer would require him to be physically present in the bank. Id. The Imposter Customer then responded as follows:

Sharon,

Thanks for your response, I understand is [sic] a wire transfer but right now I am out of the town [sic] and i [sic] need to make the transfer as a matter of urgency.

Could you please advice [sic] and let me know what help you can render for me to complete the transfer in time. [sic]

Awaiting your urgent response.

Id. at 96. Plaintiff responded to the e-mail by indicating that she could send a cashier's check overnight, but that she would need an address to do so. Id. Upon receipt of this e-mail, the Imposter Customer immediately provided contact details to receive the cashier's check:

Thanks for the help Sharon, here is the contact details to receive the cashier check. Please let me know as soon as you done [sic] and when is the cashier check going to be ready to cash out. [sic]

Id. at 95. Before Plaintiff sent the cashier's check, however, she realized that the Imposter Customer had requested more funds than the relevant bank account contained. Id. She inquired, then, whether she should take money from a line of credit to cover the balance requested. Id. The Imposter Customer responded:

Alright please kindly go ahead and take the money from the loan. let [sic] me know when you [sic] done.

Id. at 94. Plaintiff authorized the cashier's check and sent the check via overnight FedEx. Id. The next day, the Imposter Customer again e-mailed Plaintiff. The Imposter Customer requested a second cashier's check:

Sharon,

How are you doing and hope my email fine [sic] you well?

I would like to let you know that the receiver of that check will not be able to receive the cashier check due to some issues on the bank account and i [sic] will like to [sic] give you the new contact details to re issued [sic] the check and cancel that one.

Please advice [sic] and get back to me in time.

Id. at 93. Plaintiff responded by informing the Imposter Customer that she could not stop payment or cancel the cashier's check. Id. The Imposter Customer then requested a second check again:

Sharon,Thanks for your urgent response, I will let him to inform [sic] the bank to return the cashier check back [sic] and meanwhile can you make arrangement to issue a new one again for me now so that i [sic] can give you the details in your reply back. [sic]

Awaiting your urgent response.

Id. at 92. Plaintiff reminded the Imposter Customer that the bank account was now empty, so the bank would only be able to advance him an additional $8,000 on credit because, at that amount, the customer's credit line would be exhausted. Id.; DE 28 at 5. The Imposter Customer was unconcerned about the additional extension of credit, and inquired whether Plaintiff had sent the second check. DE 28-2 at 91. Plaintiff sent the second check. Id. at 90-91. Later, Plaintiff sent a third cashier's check, drawing from an additional bank account, to yet another address at the Imposter Customer's request. DE 28 at 3. Plaintiff did not meet with or speak with the customer of record before authorizing any of the three cashier's checks at issue, nor did Plaintiff attempt to verify the Imposter's identity. Id.

After Plaintiff sent the third cashier's check, Regions learned from the actual customer that the customer had never requested any cashier's checks. Id. at 5-6. Two of the three cashier's checks had been successfully cashed, resulting in a net loss to Regions of $12,000. Id. Plaintiff's branch manager has never been notified of any employee, other than Plaintiff, who has received an e-mail direction from a customer to issue a cashier's check, and who has issued such check by mail without having authenticated the identity of the customer in person or telephonically, causing a financial loss to Regions. Id. at 8.

The customer affected by the foregoing transactions signed an affidavit stating that he had not authorized the cashier's checks on June 1, 2016. DE 28-2 at 62. Five days later, on June 6, 2016, Plaintiff took FMLA leave. Id. Plaintiff's FMLA leave was for "generalized anxietydisorder." DE 1-1 at 5. While Plaintiff was on FMLA leave, she filed a complaint alleging racial discrimination. Id. at 66. Plaintiff returned from her FMLA leave on August 30, 2016. DE 28 at 9. Upon returning, Plaintiff submitted a physician's note stating that she needed to take a fifteen-minute "stress-free break" every hour. Id. Regions allowed Plaintiff to take these breaks. Id. On October 29, 2012, Regions terminated Plaintiff based upon her triple violation of the Regions Fraud-Prevention Policy and the corresponding financial loss that her violations caused to Regions. Id. at 1, 8. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed this suit, alleging that she was fired on the basis of her race and disability. Plaintiff's counts are as follows: Race Discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act (Count I), Color Discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act (Count II), Disability Discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act (Count III), Family and Medical Leave Act Interference (Count IV), and Family and Medical Leave Act Retaliation (Count V).

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The existence of a factual dispute is not by itself sufficient grounds to defeat a motion for summary judgment; rather, "the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). A dispute is genuine if "a reasonable trier of fact could return judgment for the non-moving party." Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States, 516 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48). A fact is material if "it would affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Id. (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48).

In deciding a summary judgment motion, the Court views the facts in the light mostfavorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. See Davis v. Williams, 451 F.3d 759, 763 (11th Cir. 2006). The Court does not weigh conflicting evidence. See Skop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130, 1140 (11th Cir. 2007). Thus, upon discovering a genuine dispute of material fact, the Court must deny summary judgment. See id.

The moving party bears the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. See Shiver v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 1342, 1343 (11th Cir. 2008). Once the moving party satisfies this burden, "the nonmoving party 'must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.'" Ray v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 327 F. App'x 819, 825 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)). Instead, "[t]he non-moving party must make a sufficient showing on each essential element of the case for which he has the burden of proof." Id. (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). Accordingly, the non-moving party must produce evidence, going beyond the pleadings, to show that a reasonable jury could find in favor of that party. See Shiver, 549 F.3d at 1343.

III. ANALYSIS

Regions argues that it is entitled to summary judgment as to each of Plaintiff's counts. The Court addresses each count (and Regions' corresponding...