The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday shut down a former Atlanta city attorney’s bid to revive explosive sexual harassment allegations—closing the door on a case she argued deserved new life under the Court’s own 2024 Muldrow ruling.

High Court Declines to Revisit the Case

In its routine order list, the justices declined to hear Tamara Baines’ October petition seeking to overturn an Eleventh Circuit decision that affirmed summary judgment for the City of Atlanta and Robin Shahar, the former chief counsel of the city’s Law Department.

Baines first sued in January 2019, accusing the city and Shahar of violating Title VII, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. As usual, the Court offered no insight into its refusal to intervene.

Allegations of Harassment and Retaliation

Claims Against a High-Profile City Attorney

According to Baines, her 2016 assignment to work under Shahar spiraled into misconduct. She alleged Shahar frequently touched her leg without consent and made repeated sexual advances. Baines also claimed coworkers mocked her as “weird” and “crazy” because she lived with bipolar disorder and other mental health conditions.

In December 2016, Baines said Shahar told her that the coworker harassment would cease only if she submitted to Shahar’s advances—a proposition Baines said triggered a severe mental health crisis that forced her to take nearly two months of medical leave.

When she attempted to return in February 2017, Baines said human resources placed her on administrative leave pending a fitness-for-duty evaluation. She was later fired, accused of practicing law while on leave in violation of city policy.

Courts Consistently Back the City

In May, an Eleventh Circuit panel upheld U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash’s 2022 ruling dismissing her claims, concluding that the allegations were either filed too late or lacked sufficient evidentiary support.

But Baines argued the appeals court failed to apply the Supreme Court’s April 2024 ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which lowered the bar for employees alleging discrimination. She insisted that, under Muldrow, conduct outside the statutory time window still contributed to the hostile environment that ultimately cost her job.

Petition Argues City Weaponized Its Policies

Baines also told the justices that Shahar kept her close specifically to continue harassment, altering her work assignments, removing her from cases after she rejected advances, and ultimately shaping the conditions for her termination.

She further argued the city dragged out her return-to-work process—delaying opportunities and providing a pretext for firing her.

Accusations of a Systemic Cover

Baines said both the trial and appellate courts overlooked Atlanta’s alleged avoidance of her complaints and its retaliation through administrative leave and the fitness-for-duty requirement.

“An employer cannot be allowed to subject a disabled employee to a pretextual fit-for-duty examination and termination to avoid remedying a sexually hostile work environment,” she wrote, warning that the ruling effectively rewards municipalities for merely having policies—regardless of whether they enforce them.

Her petition invoked Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978), arguing that allowing the Eleventh Circuit’s decision to stand shields local governments from liability even when their practices contradict their written policies.

Legal Representation

Baines is represented by Cheryl B. Legare of Legare Attwood & Ragan LLC.
The City of Atlanta and Shahar are represented by Jamala S. McFadden of The Employment Law Solution.