Wilson v. The Birmingham Public Library Foundation et al

Filing 31

MOTION for Summary Judgment by Birmingham Library Board, City of Birmingham, Alabama, The. (Fullerton, Frederic)

Download PDF
FILED 2011 Jul-20 AM 07:55 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION BARBARA ANN WILSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. CV-10-KOB-2386 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The Defendants, the City of Birmingham, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Alabama, and the Birmingham Library Board, by and through their attorney of record, in the above-styled cause, and move this Honorable Court to grant summary judgment in their favor as to all claims in plaintiff’s complaint, and as grounds therefore, say as follows: 1. The complaint fails to state a claim against the Defendants upon which relief may be granted. 2. There is no genuine issue as to any material fact and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 3. The plaintiff failed to allege, against the defendants, violations of clearly established constitutional and federal statutory rights. The plaintiff’s 1 allegations do not give rise to violations of any rights under the U.S. Constitution. 4. The Defendants did not deprive the plaintiff of any constitutional or federally protected right. 5. The Plaintiff cannot prove a hostile work environment as she cannot show one or more of the following: (1) that he or she belongs to a protected group, (2) that the employee has been subject to unwelcome sexual harassment, such as sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other conduct of a sexual nature, (3) that the harassment must have been based on the sex of the employee, (4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment, and (5) a basis for holding the employer liable. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1). 6. The Plaintiff has failed to prove a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et. seq. and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 7. Defendant, Birmingham Library Board, is a Department of the City of Birmingham. Any and all claims against it are due to be dismissed. 2 White v. Birchfield, 582 So. 2nd 1085, (Ala. 1991), Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210 (11th Cir. 1992).. 8. The Defendants denies it can be liable for punitive damages for federal and state claims. City of Newport News v. Facts Concerts, 453 U.S. 247, 101 S. Ct. 2748 (1981). 9. The Defendants have disseminated written policies prohibiting sex discrimination, harassment and retaliation. 10. The Defendants have disseminated written policies concerning internet access and patron behavior. 11. Defendants rely upon the pleadings, their Memorandum Brief, and exhibits in support of this Motion. Respectfully submitted, /s/Fredric L. Fullerton, II Fredric L. Fullerton, II Assistant City Attorney City of Birmingham Law Department 600 City Hall, 710 North 20th Street Birmingham, Alabama 35203 (205) 254-2369/(205) 254-2502 FAX 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 20, 2011 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the e-filing system which will send notification to the following: Adam P. Morel, Esq. 517 Beacon Parkway West Birmingham, AL. 35209 /s/Fredric L. Fullerton, II Of Counsel 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?