# Janice Akins v. Fulton County, Georgia

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · August 17, 2005 · 420 F.3d 1293

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415951

## Case

- **Full name:** Janice AKINS, Debra Blount, Natalie Revell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, John Gates, Individually, Vanessa Reynolds, Individually, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** August 17, 2005
- **Citations:** 420 F.3d 1293; 23 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 466; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17328; 2005 WL 1958333
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Black
- **Judges:** Black, Wilson, Nangle
- **Cited by:** 110 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415951

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding the “close temporal proximity” between a special meeting at which- former employees in county’s purchasing department complained to the commissioner of perceived irregularities in the county’s bidding process and adverse employment" actions taken against the same emplo…
- holding in First Amendment retaliation case that unwarranted reprimands, a negative work evaluation, threat of job loss through dissolution of the plaintiffs’ division, threat of suspension without pay, removal of job duties, and exclusion from meetings did not constitute adve…
- concluding that Plaintiffs did not establish that they suffered an adverse employment action because they did not allege “that the reprimands or the threats of suspension and job loss affected the terms and conditions of their employment or their status as employees.”
- holding that “reprimands[,]” “negative evaluations[,]” “threat of job loss[,]” and “threats of suspensions without pay” were not an adverse employment action—even considered in the aggregate
- concluding that because plaintiff had not alleged that the reprimand and threats of suspension affected the terms and conditions of employment, they did not constitute adverse employment actions

## Opinion text

BLACK, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority. I would like to emphasize that there is a disputed question of fact as to whether the “main thrust” of the August 27, 1998 meeting was to discuss bidding irregularities, as Plaintiffs allege, or general work environment concerns, as Commissioner Darnell claims. This issue is best resolved by a jury, and not on a motion for summary judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415951. Public record. Not legal advice.