Along with millions of Tellurides, Sorrentos and Optimas, the Kia plant in west Georgia has produced an intricate legal dispute that tests the competing rights of human resources officials and the companies they represent.

The case, set to be argued en banc at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Oct. 22, has sparked a debate within the court and drawn the interest of employment lawyers and business groups around the country.

At issue is Andrea Gogel, a human resources director at the company who heard complaints that the company's Korean executives discriminated against women and Americans. When she came to believe she was a victim herself, she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—which soon afterward received two more complaints from Kia employees.

After company executives noticed the same Atlanta law firm represented Gogel and two co-workers who filed claims within a month of her, they fired Gogel for violating her job duties. According to the Eleventh Circuit panel decision, one executive said, she was "paid to prevent lawsuits," not encourage them.

Gogel added a retaliation claim, but in 2016, Judge Timothy Batten of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted Kia's motion for summary judgment.

Gogel appealed, and last year an Eleventh Circuit panel agreed with Batten on tossing the gender and national origin claims, but it split 2-1 in favor of reinstating Gogel's retaliation claim. The full court then agreed to rehear the case.

The fault lines are delineated between the majority decision by Judge Beverly Martin, who was joined by Senior Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain of the Ninth Circuit, and the dissent by Senior Judge Julie Carnes of the Eleventh Circuit.

Martin wrote that a 1989 precedent instructed the court to balance the purpose of Title VII and its protection of claimants "against an employer's legitimate demands for loyalty, cooperation and a generally productive work environment."

Viewing the facts of the case in light most favorable to Gogel, as required at this stage of a case, Martin held that all Gogel did was provide to a colleague the name of an attorney she was considering hiring for herself. That activity would be protected activity for anyone who wasn't in human resources, Martin added, and under these circumstances Gogel was protected, too.

Carnes responded in her dissent that a 1980 precedent held that an employee's opposition to an employer's actions—in this case, alleged discrimination—isn't protected when the means by which she expresses that opposition makes her ineffective at her job.

"It is hard to argue that a high-ranking manager whose job duties include working to resolve employee disputes without litigation can be effective in that position if she instead solicits subordinates to sue the company," Carnes wrote.

Other groups have weighed in since the whole Eleventh Circuit agreed to rehear the matter.

The EEOC supports Gogel, arguing her position in human resources is irrelevant, that a jury could find Kia fired Gogel for her protected activity and that Kia executives' belief she was soliciting other suits doesn't apply in this case.

The National Employment Lawyers Association also backs Gogel, arguing that Kia is arguing for "a new exemption from Title VII's coverage that is contrary to the plain language of the statute."

Gogel is represented by Meredith Carter of Smyrna and Lisa Lambert of Atlanta.

Carter, who did not respond to a request for comment, used to work for the employment firm Barrett & Farahany, which was named in the dissent as the firm Gogel and two other Kia employees used in suing the company. Amanda Farahany, the firm's managing partner, said Gogel took her case to Carter when Carter started her own firm.

"It's not uncommon," Farahany added, for multiple employees from the one company to hire the same firm to pursue claims.

In their brief, Carter and Lambert argued similar points made by the EEOC and the employment lawyers' group. They rejected the district court accepting Kia's reason to fire Gogel—that they lost confidence in her "loyalty and trust"—as "non-retaliatory."

"[F]ederal law is not subservient to an employer's desire for 'loyalty and trust,'" they wrote.

W. Jonathan Martin II and William Clifton III of Constangy Brooks, Smith & Prophete represent Kia, formally known as Kia Motor Manufacturing Georgia. They argued that their client was entitled to fire Gogel: "Although Gogel had an absolute right to pursue her own EEOC claims against KMMG, she did not have the right to abandon the critical responsibilities of her position and, instead, to encourage or solicit others to join her litigation."

They added that Gogel admits referring another employee to her attorney "but asserts that such conduct is protected under any an all circumstances. That is not the law."

Martin did not respond to a request to comment.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, boasting 300,000 direct members, filed an amicus brief backing Kia. It argued that Gogel's position in human resources was a critical factor in analyzing whether her actions were protected.

The Association of Global Automakers, represented by Lawrence Ashe Jr. and Justin Gunter of Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, also back Kia. "No one is attempting to exempt HR professionals from Title VII," they argued, adding that the law doesn't immunize employees "who refuse to perform their key job duties."