Rawls v. State of Alabama Department of Human Resources

Filing 61

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/17/12. (scn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

CAROLYN RAWLS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN RESOURCES,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:11cv59-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
Plaintiff Carolyn Rawls, an African-American, brings
this employment-discrimination lawsuit against defendant
Alabama Department of Human Resources, charging it with
race discrimination in violation of Title VII (Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1981a & 2000e-2000e-17) and § 1981 (the Civil Rights
Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as enforced through 42
U.S.C. § 1983).1

Jurisdiction is proper under 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5(f)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

This cause is now

1. “[Section] 1983 constitutes the exclusive federal
remedy for violation by state actors of the rights
guaranteed under § 1981.”
Bryant v. Jones, 575 F.3d
1281, 1288 n. 1 (11th Cir. 2009).

before the court on the Human Resources Department’s
motion

for

summary

judgment.

For

the

reasons

that

follow, the motion will be granted.

I.

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 court must view the

evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that
party.

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

II.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from an internecine budget dispute
among several state agencies.
Resources

provides

essential

The Department of Human
services

to

Alabama

residents, such as overseeing adoptions, distributing

2

food stamps, and investigating elder and child abuse.

To

achieve these objectives, the department oftentimes has
to run criminal background checks, a task that is handled
internally by the Office of Criminal History Checks.
This

office,

however,

does

not

conduct

criminal background investigations.
responsibility

to

the

Alabama

all

of

its

It outsources this

Department

of

Public

Safety, which conducts the background investigation and
then bills the Criminal History Checks Office for this
service.
Rawls served as the Criminal History Checks Office’s
“Program Manager,” functioning as its director.

Her

immediate supervisor was Deputy General Counsel James
Long (black).

Until February 2009, the office was housed

in the Human Resources Legal Office, which was run by
General Counsel Sharon Ficquette (white).

Rawls alleges

that Ficquette racially discriminated against her by
reprimanding

her

and

transferring

her

to

the

Human

Resources Office of Quality Control in February 2009.

3

Rawls was at the center of a protracted disagreement
between the Office of Criminal History Checks and the
Department of Public Safety over unpaid invoices for
background checks.

Since at least 2006, the two entities

struggled to develop a coordinated electronic system for
tracking invoices and payments between them.

Public

Safety implemented a software program that failed to
rectify the situation; Human Resources also attempted to
design a program to handle the invoices.

Neither entity

had successfully put in place a system by the fall 2008.
In October 2008, the Alabama Board of Adjustment--an
agency charged with hearing monetary claims against the
State--became involved in the ongoing dispute and served
as a mediator between the Human Resources and Public
Safety Departments.

In this role, the board sought to

reconcile the budgets of the two departments by sending
Public Safety’s pending claims to Human Resources and
determining whether and how much Human Resources had paid
already.

4

On October 20, 2008, the Adjustment Board sent a
claim

to

Human

Resources

attorney

Elizabeth

Hendrix

(black), who worked in the department’s Legal Office and
was tasked with resolving this dispute.

In Claim # 2009-

0048, Public Safety sought a $ 217,055 payment for 12
past-due invoices for background checks provided to the
Criminal

History

Checks

Office.

Claim

#

2009-0048

covered invoices from October 2007 to June 2008.
On

November

4,

2008,

Hendrix

alerting her to Claim # 2009-0048.
Rawls

to

action,

review
such

as

the

claim

making

a

and

sent

Rawls

memo

The memo instructed

recommend

payment

a

to

appropriate

Public

Safety,

denying a payment, or requesting additional information.
Rawls did not immediately respond to Hendrix.
Instead, on November 25, 2008, Rawls sent an email to
Long, her immediate supervisor.

Rawls’s email contained

a chart with entries for every month between October 2007
and September 2008.
from

Public

Safety,

The chart had columns for invoices
bills

from

5

Human

Resources,

net

savings,

and

percentage

paid.

That

same

day,

Long

forwarded Rawls’s email to Hendrix, commenting that the
“inability of the Department of Public Safety and [the
Human Resources Department] to reconcile bills has been
a problem for years.”

Chart Email (Doc. No. 38-1) at 19.

According to Hendrix, Rawls’s chart was not “immediately
useful to me in responding to [the Adjustment Board]”
because it did not address the specific unpaid invoices
in Claim # 2009-0048.

Hendrix Affidavit (Doc. No. 38-1)

at 5.
On December 3, 2008, Hendrix received a second claim
from the Board of Adjustment.

In Claim # 2009-0178,

Public Safety sought a $ 78,201.50 payment for three
past-due invoices for background checks conducted between
July 2008 and September 2008.

On January 7, 2009,

Hendrix sent the second claim to Rawls and asked for a
response.
On January 14, 2009, Long sent Ficquette and Human
Resources Commissioner Nancy Buckner (white) an email

6

detailing staff discord at the Criminal History Checks
Office; Rawls was copied on this email.
Long,

“[Criminal

complaining

and

History
feeling

Checks
very

According to

Office]

much

staff

unappreciated

are
by

management” despite numerous new electronic programs that
had just been implemented.
31.

Long Email (Doc. No. 49-1) at

Long approvingly mentioned that Rawls was doing the

best she could to keep office staff motivated.
On January 16, 2009, Hendrix sent another email to
Rawls demanding a response to Claim # 2009-0048 and Claim
# 2009-0178.

On January 26, Rawls replied to Hendrix by

saying that Human Resources had made “partial payments”
to Public Safety for fiscal year 2008.

Rawls also

explained that Human Resources had built a new software
program to review the invoices for fiscal year 2009.
Rawls-Hendrix Email (Doc. No. 38-1) at 32.

Next, on

January 29, 2009, Rawls copied Hendrix on an email where
she stated that she had just completed working through
the October 2007 invoices and that Public Safety would be

7

owed an unspecified additional payment.

And, on January

30, 2009, Rawls responded to the second Adjustment Board
claim and sent Hendrix an email with the same chart that
she had previously sent to Long.
Tensions reached a tipping point in early February.
On February 2, 2009, Rawls emailed Patricia Evans, a
Public Safety employee, about the October 2007 invoice
reconciliation. Rawls informed Evans that the department
“will be eligible for an additional $ 8,330.00 payment
via [the Board of Adjustment] for 10-2007 after the
[board] hearing is held.”
38-1) at 44.

Rawls-Evans Email (Doc. No.

According to Hendrix, Rawls never received

prior authorization to tell Public Safety that Human
Resources would pay $ 8,330 for the October invoice.
Also,

on

February

2,

2009,

Paul

Lista,

a

Human

Resources administrative assistant, sent Rawls an email
and copied Hendrix, stating that he had received a phone
call

from

Judy

Earnest,

an

employee

at

the

Alabama

Finance Department who handled Adjustment Board work.

8

Lista related that Earnest had expressed concern that
Human Resources was attempting to circumvent the Board of
Adjustment process.
Early in the morning on February 4, 2009, Evans
called Hendrix to discuss Rawls’s promise.

Lista then

forwarded Hendrix the email in which Rawls promised Evans
the

$

8,330

conversations

payment.
in

an

Hendrix

email

to

memorialized

Long,

which

reads

pertinent part:
“Patricia [Evans] and her supervisor
called the office this morning regarding
the [Public Safety] claims. During the
conversation, Ms. Evans referenced some
communication that she had received from
Carolyn Rawls regarding the amount that
was owed and partial payments. I told
her that [I] was unaware of any such
communication[,] that the Department had
not submitted an answer to the Board
because we were still investigating and
attempting to determine what was and was
not owed to them. I later received an
email from Paul [Lista], which details
the
information
that
Carolyn
communicated to Ms. Evans at [Public
Safety] regarding partial payment of the
claim on February 2, 2009. As indicated
below, Ms. Evans contacted the Board
regarding
that
communication
and
9

these
in

Carolyn’s/[Human Resources Department]’s
ability to make such payments.
That
explains why Judy [Earnest] at the Board
called here on Monday, February 2,
200[9]
and
insinuated
that
the
Department was seemingly circumventing
the [Board of Adjustment] process.
I
don’t understand how partial payments
can be made once a claim has ben
submitted to the Board.
It was my
understanding that the Department loses
the ability/authority to legally pay a
claim
that
is
outside
of
the
current ... fiscal year and that such
claims were to be submitted to the
Board.
“Ms. Evans’ supervisor expressed to me
that he was not happy about the time
that had elapsed between the time the
work was performed by [Public Safety]
personnel and the receipt of payment.
He also expressed concern regarding what
he described as the inability to reign
Carolyn in about the recurring delay in
payments. He asked me who was ‘running
[Human Resources]’ and whether that
person was Carolyn because it was his
understanding
that
we
had
a
Commissioner.”
Hendrix-Long Email (Doc. No. 38-1) at 42 (emphasis in
original).
On February 11, 2009, Ficquette issued a reprimand to
Rawls.

Ficquette’s reprimand noted that the Office of
10

Criminal History Checks’s process for reconciling bills
from Public Safety was “burdensome, cumbersome, and far
too time consuming.”

Reprimand (Doc. No. 47) at 8.

The

reprimand initially focused on Rawls’s failure to respond
promptly and adequately to Hendrix’s memos concerning the
two Adjustment Board claims.
criticized

Rawls

for

The reprimand further

“expect[ing]

Public

Safety

to

develop a system for our tracking of what we paid” and
for failing to develop an internal means of tracking
clearances and paying pills due Public Safety.

Id. at 9.

Ficquette emphasized Rawls’s $ 8,330 promise to Evans,
stating that it was “an unauthorized promise to pay,
binding the Department.”

Id.

Ficquette recounted how

this promise angered Evans and other Public Safety staff,
caused a Public Safety supervisor to question Rawls’s and
the

Human

Resources

Department’s

leadership,

exacerbated tensions between the two departments.

and
Next,

the reprimand detailed the Human Resources Department’s
interactions

with

Lista

and

11

the

fact

that

Rawls’s

behavior
conclude

had

led

that

others
Human

outside
Resources

the

department

was

to

“seemingly

circumventing the [Board of Adjustment] process.”

Id. at

10.
The reprimand concluded with a list of the ways Rawls
violated

state

personnel

rules.

Specifically,

reprimand states that:
“a. You have failed to put in place
processes to allow for quick processing,
tracking and monitoring of requests for
clearances.
“b. You have failed to put in place
adequate processes to ensure obtainable,
identifiable results in a timely manner.
“c. You have failed to correct broken
processes that you knew and have known
about since as early as 2006.
“d. You made a false statement to the
[Board of Adjustment] without authority
to do so.
“e. You violated Department policy by
keeping money orders in the [Office of
Criminal History Checks] overnight and
for as long as several months. Money
orders are to be sent to the Office of
Finance on the day of receipt. No money
is to be kept in offices overnight.
12

the

“f.
You
have
compromised
the
Department’s relationships with other
agencies.”
Id.

The “false statement” referenced in the reprimand is

Rawls’s email to Evans.
the

reprimand

replacement

were
and

The money orders mentioned in

found

in

Rawls’s

subordinates

office;

provided

Rawls’s

deposition

testimony that outdated money orders were discovered.
As a result of the reprimand, Rawls was removed from
her position as Office of Criminal History Checks Program
Manager.

She was replaced by Tommy Crabtree (white), who

became acting manager/director of the office effective
February 11, 2009.

Buckner also moved the office out of

the Human Resources Legal Office and placed it under the
supervision

of

Human

Jinright.

According

Resources
to

both

Chief
Crabtree

of

Staff

and

Nancy

Jinright,

Crabtree did not seek the Criminal History Checks Office
job

and,

in

position.

fact,

voiced

Rawls’s

disappointment

supervisor,

reprimanded.

13

Long,

in

his

was

new
also

Rawls

was

immediately

transferred

to

the

Human

Resources Department’s Office of Quality Control, which
performs monthly reviews of food-stamp cases to ascertain
whether the recipients’ eligibility has been correctly
determined.

She

retained

her

status

Manager” and her pay remained the same.
longer supervised any employees.

as

a

“Program

However, she no

She requested a private

office, but was given the only available space in the
office-–a
supervisor.

cubicle

across

the

hall

from

her

new

During her time at the Office of Quality

Control, Rawls complained of frequent migraine headaches.
On February 17, 2009, Rawls submitted a rebuttal to
her letter of reprimand.
denied

all

charges

Her response categorically

against

her

and

recited

her

accomplishments at the Office of Criminal History Checks.
She then pointed out that a new electronic system to
monitor background-check invoices would be in place the
next

day:

February

18,

2009.

Rawls

admitted

to

communicating with Evans about the $ 8,330 payment but

14

stated that this was a “gesture to show that we were
working in good faith” and that she “was never advised
that I could not communicate with Public Safety about
their claim.”

Rawls Rebuttal (Doc. No. 47) at 14.

Rawls

further stated that the “relationship between [the Human
Resources

Department]

and

the

Department

has

Public

Safety has been good,” id., but that Public Safety was to
blame for the invoice confusion.

The rebuttal concluded

with an assertion that white supervisors–-such as Cheri
Martin, who supervised the Human Resources information
systems office--involved with the invoice dispute were
not reprimanded or transferred.
On March 9, 2009, Rawls announced her intent to
retire

effective

April

1,

2009.

Rawls

cited

her

“unjustified removal” from the Office of Criminal History
Checks

and

Control.

the

conditions

at

the

Office

of

Quality

Rawls further stated that she was performing

work appropriate for a “Program Specialist,” a lower

15

classification than a “Program Manager.”

Rawls Letter

(Doc. No. 36-2) at 5.
Meanwhile,

on

February

24,

2009,

the

Human

Resources-Public Safety dispute was resolved with the
entry of two consent judgments totaling $ 177,688.25.
The

consent

judgments

included

a

detailed

chart

indicating the claim number, month, amount requested,
amount

Human

Resources

paid,

and

balance

due.

The

consent-judgment chart was more precise and contained
different figures from the ones Rawls had forwarded to
Long and Hendrix.

Compare Rawls Chart (Doc. No. 38-1) at

40 with Consent-Judgment Chart (Doc. No. 38-1) at 51.

III.

DISCUSSION

Rawls asserts two race-discrimination claims: (1) the
February 2009 reprimand and transfer to the Office of
Quality Control; and (2) a constructive discharge.

16

A.

Reprimand and Transfer

Both Title VII and § 1981 “have the same requirements
of

proof

and

use

the

same

analytical

framework.”

Standard v. A.B.E.L. Services, Inc., 161 F.3d 1318, 1330
(11th Cir. 1998).

Under the familiar burden-shifting

framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.
792

(1973),

a

plaintiff

has

the

initial

burden

of

establishing a prima-facie case of unlawful employment
discrimination by a preponderance of evidence.
802.
the

Id. at

In this case, because Rawls claims “racial bias in
application

of

discipline

for

violation

of

work

rules,” she may establish a prima-facie case by showing
“either (a) that [she] did not violate the work rule, or
(b) that [she] engaged in misconduct similar to that of
a

person

outside

the

protected

class,

and

that

the

disciplinary measures enforced against [her] were more
severe than those enforced against the other persons who
engaged in similar misconduct.”
F.2d 1534, 1540 (11th Cir. 1989).

17

Jones v. Gerwens, 874

If the plaintiff establishes a prima-facie case, the
burden

then

shifts

presumption

by

to

the

defendant

articulating

a

to

rebut

legitimate,

non-

discriminatory reason for its employment action.
defendant

has

the

burden

of

production,

the

not

The
of

persuasion, and thus need not convince the court that the
reason advanced actually motivated its action.

Combs v.

Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519, 1539 n.11 (11th Cir.
1997).
Once

the

presumption

defendant

of

satisfies

discrimination

plaintiff

has

the

evidence,

including

opportunity
the

is

this

burden,

eliminated

to

previously

come

and

forward

produced

“the
the
with

evidence

establishing the prima facie case, sufficient to permit
a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the reasons
given by the [defendant] were not the real reasons for
the

adverse

employment

decision.”

Chapman

v.

Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1024 (11th Cir. 2000).

AI
In

other words, a plaintiff must show that a defendant’s

18

proffered

explanation

is

a

mere

pretext

for

discriminatory conduct.
The parties spend considerable time briefing the
question of whether Rawls has made out a prima-facie case
of

race

discrimination.

But

where

a

“court

has

sufficient evidence to determine whether the employee has
been a victim of discrimination, the court need not go
through the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting process and
should

instead

discrimination.”

reach

the

ultimate

issue

of

Shuford v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ.,

978 F. Supp. 1008, 1017 (M.D. Ala. 1997) (Thompson, J.).
“In most cases, the real question lies in whether the
employer’s
pretextual.”

legitimate

non-discriminatory

reason

is

Bailey-Potts v. Alabama Dep’t of Public

Safety, 2012 WL 566820, *4 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 21, 2012)
(Thompson, J.).

This insight is particularly true where,

as here, a plaintiff’s discriminatory-discipline claim
rests on whether the employee actually violated workplace
rules.

19

The

Department

of

Human

Resources

has

provided

detailed evidence to support Ficquette’s reprimand.

The

record includes numerous email conversations involving
Rawls, Long, Hendrix, Evans, and Lista.

These emails

confirm the reasons given in Ficquette’s reprimand for
Rawls’s transfer.

For example, Rawls’s email to Evans

promising the $ 8,330 is in the record; the tension with
Public

Safety

personnel

and

their

complaints

about

Rawls’s leadership are also documented.
Even Rawls’s rebuttal cuts against her case.

Rawls

admits that she emailed Evans about the $ 8,300 payment,
perhaps

the

Resources.
she

blames

most

serious

charge

alleged

by

Human

The invoice backlog is conceded by Rawls, but
Public

Safety

and

responsibility for the problem.

diminishes

her

own

And while Rawls mentions

the forthcoming (but unimplemented) software tracking
program, it only went online in February 2009, three
years after the two departments began having problems.

20

Indeed, the Office of Criminal History Checks was still
processing invoices from October 2007 in February 2009.
In short, Human Resources submits that it disciplined
Rawls because she violated work rules (the Evans email)
and failed to keep up with background-check invoices sent
by Public Safety.
discipline

Moreover, Human Resources declined to

Rawls’s

alleged

white

comparators

because

their involvement in the Human Resources-Public Safety
dispute

was

not

the

same-–their

offices

were

not

responsible for solving that problem.
Against this evidentiary backdrop, Rawls submits that
Ficquette’s actions were racially motivated.
Rawls

Deposition

(Doc.

No.

36-1)

at

See, e.g.,

70-71.

Rawls,

however, does not provide any direct evidence of racial
animus.

Rawls also cites deposition testimony from Long,

her immediate supervisor, who claims that Ficquette was
racially

motivated

disciplined him.

when

she

transferred

Rawls

and

See Long Deposition (Doc. No. 54) at

138 (“Q: Do you believe that [the Rawls] reprimand was an

21

intentional discriminatory move on the part of Sharon
Ficquette?

A: I believe that it was part of the process

to get [Rawls] out of the way.”).
While Rawls and Long allege racial discrimination at
the hands of Ficquette, the Department of Human Resources
has

provided

numerous

critics

perform her duties adequately.
concerned

Rawls’s

of

Rawls’s

ability

to

The bulk of the evidence

interactions

with

Hendrix,

who

repeatedly complained that Rawls’s replies were tardy and
unresponsive
Resources

to

the

actual

Commissioner

question

Buckner

decision-making process.

was

asked.

also

part

Human
of

the

Buckner took the drastic step

of reorganizing the department after Rawls’s transfer,
which is further evidence of the systematic problems at
the Office of Criminal History Checks.
Criticism
supervisors.

of

Rawls

was

not

limited

to

her

Rawls’s behavior angered Public Safety

personnel

and

deepened

the

agencies.

Even Rawls’s subordinate employees testified

22

strife

between

the

two

that the Office of Criminal History Checks was “very
disorganized

and

dysfunctional”

during

her

tenure.

Stanton Deposition (Doc. No. 38-11) at 3.
Rawls has also failed to provide any white comparator
who engaged in similar behavior but received less-severe
punishment, evidence which if provided would have raised
the specter of racially discriminatory treatment. “To
make a comparison of the plaintiff’s treatment to that of
non-minority employees, the plaintiff must show that he
and the employees were similarly situated in all relevant
respects.”

Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1562 (11th

Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (emphasis added).

The Eleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals requires that “the quantity and
quality
identical

of

the
to

comparator's

prevent

courts

misconduct
from

be

nearly

second-guessing

employers' reasonable decisions and confusing apples with
oranges.”

Maniccia v. Brown, 171 F.3d 1364, 1368 (11th

Cir. 1999) (emphasis added).

Rawls was the sole Program

Manager in the Office of Criminal History Checks.

23

While

she points to potential comparators in other divisions,
none of these employees was responsible for overseeing
the

same

type

of

backlogged

invoice

system.

Most

significantly, none of these individuals ever made a
false

statement

concerning

reconciliation

process

Thus,

and

whether

to

to

the
an

Board

of

Adjustment

out-of-agency
extent

what

employee.
Resources

Human

disciplined these other employees is irrelevant. Because
these comparators are not “nearly identical,” id., Rawls
cannot use them to rebut Human Resources Department’s
legitimate,

non-discriminatory

rationale

for

its

of

race

disciplinary decision against Rawls.
Ultimately,
discrimination,

in

support

Rawls

of

asserts

her
that

claim
Human

Resources

overreacted when it disciplined her and, therefore, race
had to be a motivating factor in the decision-making
process.

But “[f]ederal courts do not sit as a super-

personnel department that reexamines an entity’s business
decisions.”

Elrod v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 939 F.2d

24

1466, 1470 (11th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks
omitted).

“The inquiry into pretext centers upon the

employer’s

beliefs,

and

not

perceptions of his performance.”
1565.

the

employee’s

own

Holifield, 115 F.3d at

Rawls’s subjective belief that Human Resources

overreacted

and

insufficient

to

engaged

in

racial

demonstrate

that

discrimination
the

is

department’s

legitimate, non-discriminatory rationale was a pretext
for race discrimination.
Accordingly, the court finds that there is no genuine
dispute that Human Resources reprimanded and transferred
Rawls because she violated workplace rules and failed to
implement an adequate system for processing backgroundcheck invoices.

B.

Constructive Dismissal

“A claim for constructive discharge requires the
employee to demonstrate that the work environment and
conditions

of

employment

were

25

so

unbearable

that

a

reasonable person would be compelled to resign.”

Virgo

v. Riviera Beach Assoc., 30 F.3d 1350, 1363 (11th Cir.
1994).

As such, the court must engage in an objective

inquiry and “do[es] not consider a plaintiff’s subjective
feelings about his employer’s actions.”

Doe v. Dekalb

County School Dist., 145 F.3d 1441, 1450 (11th Cir.
1998).

“A reasonable employee is one who does not assume

the worst or jump to conclusions too fast.”

Hellums v.

Webster Indus., Inc., 97 F. Supp. 2d 1287, 1297 (M.D.
Ala. 2000) (Albritton, C.J.) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Here, Rawls contends that the conditions in the
Office of Quality Control compelled her early retirement.
Rawls

argues

that

the

cubicle-office

space

was

objectively intolerable. Rawls also believes that taking
away

her

subordinate

responsibilities

employees

indicated

demoted.

26

that

and

diminishing

she

was

her

effectively

Human Resources contends that Rawls cannot satisfy
the high threshold for a constructive-discharge claim.
Rawls was neither demoted nor was her pay impacted.
Rawls was assigned to an important task–-verifying food
stamp recipients’ eligibility.

And, while Rawls may have

not had any employees to supervise and had to work in a
cubicle, this hardly qualifies as objectively unbearable
working conditions. Rather, Rawls subjectively found the
conditions

intolerable:

she

served

in

the

Office

of

Quality Control for under a month before submitting her
retirement

letter.

Because

“hurt

feelings

are

insufficient as proof of constructive discharge,” id.,
Rawls’s constructive-discharge claim must fail.2
Moreover, a statute prohibiting racial discrimination
does not constitute “a general civility code for the
American workplace.” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs.,
Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80 (1998).

Such a law, therefore,

2. In the alternative, Human Resources submits that
it is immune from suit under § 1981. Because this court
grants summary judgment on both the Title VII and § 1981
claims, it need not address the immunity argument.
27

“does

not

regardless

prohibit
as

the

all

nature

constructive
of

or

motive

discharges,
behind

the

intolerable conditions that caused the discharge, that
is, regardless as to whether the intolerable conditions
were caused by the type of discriminatory ... conduct
that [the law] was intended to address.”

Cowan v.

Jackson Hosp. & Clinic, Inc., 572 F.Supp.2d 1286, 1292
(M.D. Ala. 2008) (Thompson, J.).

Because Rawls has

failed to put forth sufficient evidence establishing that
the

conditions

leading

to

her

allegedly

compelled

retirement were motivated, or any way connected, to the
type of discrimination Title VII and § 1981 address, her
constructive-discharge claim must fail.
*

*

*

An appropriate summary judgment in favor of the
Alabama Department of Human Resources and against Rawls
will be entered.
DONE, this the 17th day of April, 2012.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE