Blount v. GRU Cancer Center et al
Filing
43
ORDER denying 39 Motion for Summary Judgment, granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment, directing the Clerk to enter final judgment in favor of Defendant, and closing this civil action. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 03/29/2016. (thb)
IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
ANNIE W.
BLOUNT,
*
*
Plaintiff,
*
v.
*
CV
114-162
*
MCG HEALTH,
INC., d/b/a GEORGIA
REGENTS MEDICAL CENTER,
*
*
Defendant.
*
ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff alleges Defendant terminated her employment
as
an
act
of
racial
discrimination
filing an EEOC charge.
summary judgment
(doc.
39)
(doc.
because
and
in
retaliation
for
her
The Court GRANTS Defendant's motion for
20)
and DENIES Plaintiff's cross-motion
Defendant
indisputably
terminated
Plaintiff's
employment for the legitimate reason that she engaged in two acts
of
insubordination
by
refusing
to
attend
a
staff
meeting
and
rehanging a banner in defiance of an order to remove it.
I.
Plaintiff,
an
BACKGROUND
African-American
female,
began
working
for
Defendant in the Georgia Regents University Cancer Center as a
social worker on November 16,
2009.
(Annie Blount Dep.
54:4-25;
Def.
Ex.
4;
employment
Steven
Black
occurred
occurred
during
on
2012
Decl.
f
February
and
4.)
6,
January
Termination
2013.
2013
of
her
Several
events
either
relate
that
directly to her claims and the termination of her employment, or
are
at
the
very
least
illuminative
of
Plaintiff's
workplace
attitude and relationships.
A,
Promotion
Supervisor
of
Susan
Defendant promoted Ms.
Doughtie
Susan
Doughtie,
to
Social
a Caucasian,
position of social worker supervisor in October 2012.
Dep.
29,
84:13
2015,
- 85:4;
UK 1/
discriminatory
was white,
Def.
2.)
and
Ex. 21; Decl.
Plaintiff
that
Susan,
felt
to the
(Blount
of Susan Doughtie,
"the whole
who was
June
situation was
my part-time
co-worker
for her to have been promoted as my supervisor when I
was doing the work and I had to actually train her,
situation
Worker
was
discriminatory."
(Blount
Dep.
the whole
255:9
-
19.)
Plaintiff did not apply for the supervisor position given to Ms.
Doughtie.
B.
In
(Blount Dep. 280:19 - 281:7.)
Moving Into Shared Office Space
late
November 2012,
including Plaintiff,
(Doughtie Decl. K 7.)
several
employees
changed offices,
due to growth and limited office space.
Plaintiff was upset about having to move
during a scheduled clinic meeting.
(Blount Dep. 99:18 - 100:9;
203:12-14.)
Plaintiff also had
to share her new office space
with a colleague, Ms. Bridget Story.
(Black Decl. % 6; Doughtie
Decl.
Plaintiff
f
7.)
Khleif,
a
On
director
"Space Matters"
and
a
December
at
4,
the
2012,
Cancer
Center,
sent
an
Dr.
email
Samir
entitled
that referred to the office move as humiliating
wdebasement."
(Def.
Ex.
27;
Blount
121:14
-
123:14.)
Plaintiff testified she only complained about the office move on
November
not
29,
2012
publicly
behind closed doors
gripe
241:10-16; Def.
Ex.
about
it.
to
(Blount
the
Dep.
215:20
216:20,
for
Plaintiff's
2012 Performance Evaluation
Ms.
Doughtie
solicited
feedback
performance evaluation on November 28, 2012.
had
-
55.)
C.
-
chaplain and did
17; Def.
only
Ex.
26; Doughtie Decl.
supervised
Plaintiff
for
(Blount Dep. 107:5
f 3.)
three
2012
Because Ms. Doughtie
weeks,
she
contacted
eight physicians and four nurse navigators exclusively assigned
to Plaintiff as of November 2012 for input.
(Doughtie Decl. 1[3;
Blount Dep. 91:17 - 93:7; Def. Ex. 24; Doughtie Decl. 1(3.)
physicians and
two nurse navigators responded.
149:18-21; Def.
Two
Ex. 40; Doughtie Decl. K 3.)
Plaintiff
within
received
the range of
an
overall
"meets
rating
expectations"
of
and
(Blount Dep.
1.7
out
of
3.0,
just above the
range for
"below expectations."
Def.
26.)
Ex.
resistant
to
Evaluation
change,
with
patients
110:16-20,
and
critiques
difficult
when working with peers,
(Blount Dep.
to
and she
co-workers.
115:3-6,
included
locate
in
failed
go
Dep.
feedback.
response,
Ms.
Carissa
10,
Doughtie
Moser,
(Blount Dep.
2012,
positive
(Blount
the
a
received
nurse
practitioner,
improvement.
but
also
comments
her
her
comments
level,
should
26.)
Doughtie with
from
December
7,
In
Ms.
2012.
And on December
Marshall,
a nurse,
the
need
Doughtie
for
informed
and
it
was
in reply to Plaintiff's
have
(Blount Dep. 161:7-11.)
evaluation
Ex.
161:2-12.)
regarding
Ms.
110:7,
Moser's comments would not have improved her
performance rating to the next
that
-
feedback
K 15.)
% 15.)
(Doughtie Decl.
Plaintiff that Ms.
evaluation.
on
Doughtie received from Ginger
feedback
contention
positive
138:14-22; Doughtie Decl.
Ms.
extra mile
109:22
138:14-22,
was
difficult
117:22 - 118:1; Def.
Dep.
109:8;
Plaintiff
Plaintiff asked two employees to provide Ms.
additional
-
clinic,
to
(Blount
115:25 - 116:5,
107:24
submitted
been
included
in
the
Plaintiff refused to sign
without
her
signature.
(Blount Dep. 155:17 - 156:10; Def. Ex. 42.)
On
Black,
December
the
Cancer
10,
2012,
Center
Plaintiff
complained
Administrative
Director,
to
Mr.
Steven
Ms.
Tracey
Slagle,
her
Doughtie
had
former
supervisor,
should not
been
have
Plaintiff's
(Blount
Dep.
145:18
Doughtie
Decl.
and
146:14;
t 16.)
Doughtie
completed her evaluation
supervisor
-
Ms.
Mr.
for
Def.
less
Ex.
Ms.
because
than
39;
that
one
month.
Black Decl.
Black explained that Ms.
she
t
9;
Doughtie
received input from multiple physicians and nurses and instructed
Plaintiff to
focus on the areas for improvement.
145:25 - 146:14; Def.
Plaintiff
evaluation
Ex. 39; Black Decl. 1f 9. )
believes
because
(Blount Dep.
of
Ms.
her
Doughtie
race.
did
not
(Blount
give
her
a
fair
Dep.
181:19-24.)
However, Ms. Doughtie never used any racially offensive language.
(Blount Dep.
at
182:5-7.)
During Plaintiff's three and a half years
the Cancer Center,
no one ever directed any racial
comments
toward her, and no one ever said anything to Plaintiff suggesting
Ms. Doughtie had a bias
against African-Americans.
(Blount Dep.
182:8-11; 391:23 - 392:4.)
D.
On
Encounter with Infusion Nurse Patti Parrish
December
experienced
patient.
Decl.
3,
2012,
difficulty
(Blount Dep.
H 10.)
When Ms.
Patti
locating
Parrish,
Plaintiff
an
to
123:19 - 125:19; Def.
infusion
assist
Ex.
with
a
28; Doughtie
Parrish finally made contact,
refused to assist and gave Ms.
nurse,
Plaintiff
Parrish contact information for
the social worker assigned to the patient.
125:6;
Def.
Ex.
28;
Def.
Ex.
62,
p.
(Blount Dep.
10.)
Plaintiff
124:20-
testified
Ms. Parrish had difficulty locating her because her office phone
had not been set up yet
service that day.
9-10,
Ms.
16-17.)
Doughtie
worker's
and her cell phone was
Plaintiff
had
contends
instructed
and
Ms.
she refused to assist because
her
to
Parrish
not
did
assist
not
patient was experiencing domestic abuse.
E.
receiving
(Blount Dep. 218:19 - 220:3; Def. Ex. 62, pp.
patients
220:3; Def.
not
Ex. 62, pp. 9-10,
other
explain
(Blount Dep.
social
that
the
218:19 -
16-17.)
Placement on Performance Improvement Plan
On December 12,
Improvement
Plan
Ashley Nix,
and Mr.
2012,
("PIP")
Plaintiff was placed on a Performance
during
Black.
a
meeting
(Blount Dep.
with
212:6 -
Ms.
Doughtie,
214:16;
Def.
Ex. 55; Doughtie Decl. 1f 17; Nix Decl. f 11; Black Decl. f 10.)
As
reasons
engaged
in
for
its
gross
issuance,
the
PIP
cited
misconduct
by
sleeping
disciplinary meetings prior to December 3,
that
in
Plaintiff
multiple
2012;
(2)
(1)
multi-
exhibited
disruptive behavior by complaining about the office move to co
workers the day of the move; and (3) failed to follow protocol by
refusing to assist Ms. Parrish with a patient who was a victim of
abuse.
(Doughtie Decl. H 17;
Nix Decl. 1f 11; Black Decl. H 10;
Def. Ex. 55; Blount Dep. 219:5-11.)
could
be
disciplined
or
The PIP warned Plaintiff she
terminated
there were other performance
if
she
concerns.
violated
policy
(Blount Dep.
or
220:14-19;
10; Nix Decl. %
Def. Ex. 55; Doughtie Decl. f 17; Black Decl. H
11.)
Plaintiff
about
the
objected,
office
move
claiming
and
the
she
did
incident
not
with
complain
Ms.
openly
Parrish
was
caused by phone problems and Ms. Parrish's failure to advise that
the patient was an abuse victim.
the PIP would remain in place
reference to Ms.
abused.
Ms. Doughtie informed Plaintiff
with an amendment to remove the
Parrish telling Plaintiff the patient had been
(Blount Dep.
244:24 - 245:23,
248:12 - 249:15; Def. Ex.
63; Doughtie Decl. 1f 18; Nix Decl. K 13; Black Decl. f 11.)
F.
Plaintiff's Initial Complaints of Discrimination
On December 26,
"being
emailed Mr.
"being professionally sabotaged."
255:5; Def.
email
Plaintiff
Black
she was
targeted for psychologically and professionally abuse"
and was
that,
2012,
Ex.
65;
at the point,
because
discrimination.
Plaintiff
she
Black Decl.
1f
12.)
(Blount Dep. 254:9 -
Plaintiff
she did not mention discrimination in her
did
not
consider
it
to
be
(Blount Dep. 255:6-11; Def. Ex. 65).
contacted
testified
the
EEOC
on December
27
or
28,
racial
However,
2012
and
submitted
an
EEOC
Intake
Questionnaire
on
December
(Blount Dep. 193:8-10, 258:8-20, 260:18-25; Def. Ex.
In the
of
the
PIP
Intake Questionnaire,
was
racial
Plaintiff
discrimination,
and
wrote
31,
2012.
68.)
that
Plaintiff
issuance
elaborated
in her deposition she believed it was "more so retaliation" for a
complaint she made about her performance evaluation on December
10th.
(Blount Dep.
264:21
-
265:11;
Def.
Ex.
68.)
However,
Plaintiff did not complain of discrimination on December 10, 2012
and made her first official complaint of discrimination when she
contacted
the
354:5-9.)
EEOC
on December
27
or
28,
In her email on December 10,
2012.
2012
(Blount
to Mr.
Dep.
Black,
Ms.
Slagle, and Ms. Doughtie, she merely complained it was unfair to
have Ms. Doughtie conduct her evaluation since she had only been
supervisor for a month.
(Blount
Dep. 145:18 - 146:14; Def. Ex.
39; Black Decl. f 9; Doughtie Decl. f 16.)
6.
The Banner Incident
On January 15,
remove
a
facsimile
regulations
Healthcare
paper jam.
2013, Ms. Doughtie instructed Plaintiff
decorative
machine
by
banner
because
from
(1)
the
it
the Joint Commission
Organizations
("JCAHO");
was
on
and
receiving
a
tray
violation
of
to
of
a
the
the Accreditation of
(2)
it
could
cause
a
Plaintiff initially removed the banner but rehung
it.
(Blount Dep.
When Ms.
2013,
Doughtie
Plaintiff
inspection but
Decl. f 26.)
the
338:3-13,
discovered the
explained
rehung
it
1f
21.)
rehung banner on January
she
had
taken
once
the
inspectors
inspection.
testified by affidavit
it
down
for
left.
(Blount Dep.
that
violation of JCAHO regulations.
disagrees.
Doughtie Decl.
a
31,
JCAHO
(Doughtie
Ms. Doughtie never told Plaintiff she could rehang
banner after the
Black
340:18-21;
the
339:5-8.)
banner was,
in
(Black Decl. H 20.)
Mr.
fact,
a
Plaintiff
(Blount Dep. 340:13-17.)
Plaintiff pointed out to Ms. Doughtie that a decorative vase
belonging to Ms. Story was also a JCAHO
on a top shelf and too close to the
20.)
violation because it was
ceiling.
(Black Decl. f
Ms. Story removed the vase when instructed to do so,
she did not subsequently try to
(Black Decl.
and
put it back on the top shelf.
t 20; Blount Dep. 360:4 - 12.)
Plaintiff alleges
Ms. Story left a second, smaller vase on her shelf that was also
a JCAHO violation.
(Blount Decl. % 3, Blount Dep.
360:4 - 12.)
Mr. Black testified it complied with the JCAHO requirement of an
eighteen inch clearance from the ceiling, and therefore, she did
not have to move it.
H,
(Black Decl. K 20.)
Plaintiff's Refusal to Attend a Team Meeting
On the morning of January 25,
2013,
Ms.
Doughtie informed
Ms.
Story and
meeting at
Plaintiff by email that she had scheduled a staff
3:00 p.m.
in
the office shared by Plaintiff and Ms.
Story.
(Blount Dep. 292:16 - 293:4; Def. Ex. 75; Doughtie Decl.
U 22.)
At 2:50 p.m., Ms. Doughtie sent a second email advising
she had changed the location to a conference
293:8-18; Def. Ex. 76;
room.
Doughtie Decl. 1f 22.)
(Blount Dep.
Plaintiff missed
Ms. Doughtie's second email because she went to the restroom and
did
not
check
Plaintiff
take
Blackberry.
(Blount
Dep.
293:17-22.)
returned to her office and waited for the meeting to
place.
(Blount
her
Dep.
Neither
293:20
Ms.
-
Story
294:4.)
nor
Ms.
Doughtie
Plaintiff
inquiries but instead just sat and waited.
did
was
not
there.
make
(Blount Dep.
any
299:20-
300:1.)
Ms. Doughtie called Plaintiff around 3:05 p.m.
Plaintiff
Dep.
was
and
inform her of
the
to see where
location change.
(Blount
301:2-12, 302:3-18; Doughtie Decl. f 22.)
Plaintiff chose
to not attend the meeting because Ms. Doughtie
would not permit
Plaintiff to record the meeting.
- 304:1,
wanted to
words
304:11-19,
(Blount Dep.
305:10-21; Doughtie Decl.
record the meeting so
against
me
Plaintiff told Ms.
later."
301:13-22, 302:19
% 22.)
Plaintiff
"that way no one could use my
(Blount
Dep.
303:14
-
304:1.)
Doughtie she "could not afford to meet with
10
her without recording it" and that she was
meeting.
(Blount Dep. 336:25 - 337:14; Def. Ex.
Ms.
attend
"not coming"
Doughtie
the
notified Mr.
meeting,
and Mr.
process to fire her.
Black of
Black
92.)
Plaintiff's
suggested
to the
failure
initiation of
to
the
(Doughtie Decl. t 23; Doughtie Decl. Ex. C;
Black Decl. 1f 16; Black Decl. Ex. A; Nix Decl. f 15 & Ex. A.)
I.
Plaintiff's Termination
On February 1,
2013,
Plaintiff and Ms. Doughtie attended a
meeting with Tiffany McGuire from Human Resources to review the
recent problems with Plaintiff's work performance and attitude.
On February 4,
2013, Ms.
for
in
two
jobs
McGuire emailed Plaintiff
organizations
affiliated
(Blount Dep. 330:5-23;
Def. Ex.
either.
331:4-12; Def.
(Blount Dep.
with Ms. Doughtie,
Mr. Black,
90.)
with
suggestions
MCG
Health.
Plaintiff did not pursue
Ex.
90.)
Plaintiff met
and Ms. Nix on February 6,
2013,
and Ms. Nix offered her the choice to be terminated or resign in
lieu of termination.
28.)
(Blount Dep.
333:11-22; Doughtie Decl.
Plaintiff did not resign and was terminated.
333:22
-
American,
335:3.)
Defendant hired LaKeesha Cooks,
H
(Blount Dep.
an African-
to replace Plaintiff as a social worker in the Cancer
Center. (Doughtie Decl. K 32; Black Decl. K 22; Nix Decl. K 29.)
Plaintiff's
discharge
summary
11
recounts
imposition of
the
PIP on December 12, 2012 due to "gross misconduct" and lists two
infractions warranting termination, Plaintiff's refusal to attend
the
staff
banner.
meeting
(Blount
Dep.
January
25,
336:6-11,
According
to
acts
insubordination
of
the
on
337:21
decision makers,
and
2013
both
and
rehanging
- 338:2;
infractions
sufficient
cause
discharge under MCG Health's Rules of Conduct.
28;
Black Decl.
insubordination
f
19;
Nix Decl.
as
the
"refusal
f
or
Def.
17.)
willful
of
Ex.
the
92.)
constituted
for
immediate
(Doughtie Decl. 1f
Those
rules
define
disobedience
of
a
reasonable request from a supervisor or another in a position of
authority." (Def. Ex. 16, p. 2; Blount Dep. 73:24 J.
On
74:13.)
Plaintiff's Appeal of Her Termination
February
12,
2013,
Plaintiff
submitted
Dispute Request in accordance with company policy.
350:10 - 351:2; Def. Ex. 97; Nix
Decl. 1 20.)
a
Discharge
(Blount Dep.
By letter dated
February 26, 2013, Joseph Thornton, Vice President of Ambulatory
Care,
upheld the discharge and explained that,
banner back on the
fax machine,
Plaintiff
by putting the
willfully failed to
comply with a reasonable request of her supervisor.
(Blount
Dep. 365:1-8, 366:18 - 367:2; Def. Ex. 100; Nix Decl. H 22.)
On February 27, 2013, Plaintiff appealed her termination to
12
Susan Norton, Vice President of Human Resources.1
367:15-23; Def.
Plaintiff's
Dep.
Ex. 101; Nix
Def.
that
on
Ex.
back
to be
insubordinate."
Ms.
explained,
105;
Plaintiff's
banner
105.)
K 23.)
Ms. Norton upheld
termination by letter dated March 18, 2013.
380:10-19;
explained
Decl.
(Blount Dep.
the
Story
fax
"conscious
machine
.
.
.
not
f
the
383:25
treated
24.)
decision
was
(Blount Dep.
was
because Ms.
Nix Decl.
Ms.
to
the
considered
384:6;
differently,
Norton
place
action
-
(Blount
Def.
Ms.
Ex.
Norton
Story had removed the vase from her shelf
as instructed and never returned it.
(Def.
Ex.
105.)
Ms.
Norton
also found Plaintiff's refusal to attend the staff meeting to be
insubordinate.
(Blount Dep.
385:12-17; Def.
Ex. 105.)
Plaintiff next appealed to Steven Scott, an African-American
who is the Chief Operating Officer for MCG Health.
392:20
2013,
-
393:3;
Mr.
Scott
change the
Def.
Ex.
Def.
Ex. 110; Nix Decl.
notified
Plaintiff
termination decision.
112;
Nix
Decl.
f 26.)
that
H 25.)
he
saw
(Blount Dep.
Mr.
(Blount Dep.
On April
no
10,
reason
393:25
to
- 395:8;
Scott's decision was
the
1 Also on February 27, 2013, Plaintiff emailed Ms. McGuire that
she
"would
harassment."
like
to
make
a
formal
complaint
of
discrimination
and
(Blount Dep. 368:23 - 369:11; Def. Ex. 102; Nix Dec. H
23.)
Plaintiff explained that, with regard to Ms. Doughtie's actions,
"maybe it [sic] professional jealousy or pure racism, I am not sure"
and that
w[i]t
372:15- 25;
Def.
could have
Ex.
been a
102.)
13
number
of
things."
(Blount
Dep.
final
stage
of
the
discharge
dispute
395:12-23; Def. Ex. 113; Nix Decl. f
II.
A.
process.
(Blount
Dep.
27.)
DISCUSSION
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary
genuine
dispute
entitled to
56 (a) .
judgment
as
is
to
any
judgment as
Facts are
appropriate
material
a matter of
umaterial"
only
fact
if
and
law."
wthere
the
Fed.
Inc.,
no
movant
is
R.
Civ.
P.
if they could affect the outcome
of the suit under the governing substantive law.
Liberty Lobby,
is
477 U.S. 242,
248
(1986).
Anderson v.
The Court must
view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party,
U.S.
Matsushita Elec.
574,
587
inferences in
Real
Prop. ,
(1986),
[its]
941
Indus.
and
favor."
F.2d
1428,
Co. v.
must
Zenith Radio Corp.,
draw
"all
United States v.
1437
(11th Cir.
475
justifiable
Four Parcels of
1991)
(en banc)
(internal punctuation and citations omitted).
The moving party has the
Court,
motion.
initial burden of
by reference to materials on file,
Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett,
477 U.S.
showing the
the basis for the
317,
323
(1986).
How to carry this burden depends on who bears the burden of
proof at trial.
1115
(11th Cir.
Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112,
1993).
When the non-movant has the burden of
14
proof at trial, the movant may carry the initial burden in one
of
two
ways—by
negating
an
essential
element
of
the
non-
movant's case or by showing that there is no evidence to prove
a fact necessary to the non-movant's case.
See Clark v. Coats
&
(11th
Clark,
Inc.,
929
F.2d
(explaining Adickes v.
and
Celotex
evaluate
first
of
Corp. , 477
the
S.H.
whether
the
606-08
Kress & Co.,
U.S.
non-movant's
consider
604,
at
323) .
response
movant
1991)
144
(1970)
398 U.S.
Before
in
has
Cir.
the
Court
opposition,
met
its
it
initial
must
burden
showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact
and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
v.
can
City of Columbus,
curiam).
cannot
F.2d at
A
meet
mere
120 F.3d 248,
conclusory
the burden at
254
(11th Cir.
statement
trial
is
that
the
insufficient.
Jones
1997)
(per
non-movant
Clark,
929
608.
If—and only if—the movant carries its initial burden, the
non-movant may avoid summary judgment only by Memonstrat[ing]
that there is
indeed a material
summary judgment."
of proof at trial,
Id.
issue of
fact that precludes
When the non-movant bears the burden
the non-movant must tailor its response to
the method by which the movant carried its initial burden. If
the movant presents evidence affirmatively negating a material
15
fact,
the non-movant "must respond with evidence sufficient to
withstand
a
directed
verdict
motion
at
trial
fact sought to be negated."
Fitzpatrick,
the
of
the
movant
non-movant
evidence
"come
a
shows
that
an absence
must
was
either
show
"overlooked or
forward with additional
directed
evidence
verdict
motion
evidentiary deficiency."
on
material
2 F.3d at 1116.
on a
that
the
the
ignored"
material
record
by
the
If
fact,
contains
movant
or
evidence sufficient to withstand
at
Id.
trial
based
at 1117.
on
the
alleged
The non-movant cannot
carry its burden by relying on the pleadings or by repeating
conclusory allegations contained in the complaint.
v.
Ross,
B.
663 F.2d 1032,
Plaintiff
1033-34
Cannot
Her Title VII
(11th Cir.
Satisfy the
See Morris
1981).
Prima
Facie
Elements
Discrimination Claim Because There
Is
of
No
Evidence Defendant Treated More Favorably a Similarly
Situated Employee Not of the Same Protected Class.
Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating "against
any
individual
with
conditions,
or
individual's
race,
42
U.S.C.
any direct
her
respect
privileges
color,
§ 2000e-2(a)(1).
evidence
disparate
of
to
of
[her]
employment,
religion,
sex,
terms,
because
national
or
of
such
origin."
Because Plaintiff has not presented
discrimination,
treatment
compensation,
claim
16
under
the
Court
Title
VII
must
analyze
using
the
framework outlined by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
792
(1973).
(11th Cir.
In
Wright
v.
Southland
Corp.,
187
F.3d
411 U.S.
1287,
1999) .
a
disparate
ultimate burden of
treatment
case,
the
plaintiff
bears
Stone
Crab,
Inc. , 220
F.3d
1263,
Under the McDonnell Douglas framework,
come
forward
with
discrimination.
case,
she
raises
If
a
prima
the
the
to
the
inference
defendant
1274
(11th Cir.
case
of
establishes
that
a
115 F.3d 1555,
carries
its
burden,
1564
the
2000).
employment
prima
discriminatory
facie
intent
The burden of production then
to
articulate
a
legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for the action in question.
v. Reno,
EEOC v.
the plaintiff must first
facie
plaintiff
motivated the challenged action.
shifts
the
proving that the employment action at issue
was taken because of the plaintifffs protected status.
Joef s
1293
(11th Cir.
plaintiff
1997).
Holifield
If the defendant
retains
the
burden
of
persuasion to show that the employer!s proffered explanation was
not the real reason for the employment change, but was instead a
pretext for discrimination.
Burdine, 450 U.S. 248,
Texas Depft of Cmtv.
Affairs v.
256 (1980).
If, however, the plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie
case
for
discrimination,
summary
17
judgment
in
favor
of
the
defendant
is
App'x 346,
favor of
proper.
350
Summer v.
(11th Cir.
employer where
2011)
City of
Dothan,
Ala.,
444
F.
(affirming summary judgment in
former employee
alleging
race
and sex
discrimination under Title VII failed to establish a prima facie
case
for discrimination) .
disparate treatment,
of
a
protected
a plaintiff must show:
class;
employment
action;
employees
who
favorably;
and (4)
Board
Regents,
of
Holifield,
The
the
Further,
class,
(2)
she
was
her employer
not
of
the
prima
(1)
facie
she is a member
subjected
F.3d
to
adverse
treated similarly situated
same
protected
she was qualified to do the job.
342
case of
1281,
1289
(11th
class
more
Mavnard v.
Cir.
2003);
115 F.3d at 1562.
parties
do
not
dispute
that
Plaintiff,
an
African-
is a member of a protected class, was qualified
job,
and
suffered
an
adverse
employment
action.
because Plaintiff was replaced by a member of the same
there
replacement
However,
(3)
were
American female,
for
To establish a
the
treated less
is
by
no
a
allegation
member
parties
do
of
outside
disagree
a
prima
of
over
her
facie
case
through
protected
class.
whether
Plaintiff
was
favorably than a similarly situated employee of
different race,
Ms.
Story.
18
a
uIn
determining
whether
employees
are
similarly
for purposes of establishing a prima facie case,
situated
it is necessary
to consider whether the employees are involved in or accused of
the
same
ways."
or
similar
Maniccia
conduct
v.
and
Brown,
171
1999)(citations omitted).
adequate
similarities
2011) .
comparator's
disciplined
F.3d
1364,
in
1368
different
(11th
Cir.
Plaintiff bears the burden of showing
between
outside her protected class.
Cir.
are
her
conduct
and
that
of
others
Summers, 444 F. App'x at 348 (11th
Indeed,
"the
misconduct
quantity
[must]
be
and
nearly
quality
identical
of
to
the
prevent
courts from second guessing employer!s reasonable decisions and
confusing apples with oranges."
Here,
Defendant terminated Plaintiff because she rehung the
banner after Ms.
JCAHO
violation,
because
Maniccia, 171 F.3d at 1369.
Doughtie told her to remove it as a potential
and
she could not
she
refused
record it.
to
attend
Plaintiff
a
staff
meeting
contends Ms.
Story
is a proper comparator because the vase on top of her shelf was
also
a
However,
JCAHO
violation
Plaintiff
insubordination
by
and
she
fails
to
Ms.
Story,
was
never
point
much
less
reprimanded
out
two.
any
for
it.
acts
of
Indeed,
the
undisputed evidence is that Ms. Story complied with instructions
to remove the vase and never returned it.
19
(Black Decl.
H 20;
Blount Dep.
360:4
-
12.)
Furthermore,
Ms.
Story attended the
staff meeting Plaintiff refused to attend on January 25,
and nothing in the record suggests that Ms.
to
attend a
staff
2013,
Story ever refused
meeting or otherwise defied any orders
from
her supervisors.
Undeterred,
left
on
the
violation.
Plaintiff
shelf
that
Plaintiff
points
to
Plaintiff
has
a
second
believes
presented
no
vase
to
Ms.
a
be
Story
JCAHO
evidence
that
a
supervisor ever instructed Ms. Story to remove this second vase.
Mr.
Black explained the second vase did not have to be removed
because it did not constitute a JCAHO violation.
(Black Decl.
f
20.)
In
her
untimely
motion
for
summary
judgment,
appears to argue for the first time that Ms.
comparator
because,
after
Plaintiff's
Plaintiff
Story is a proper
termination,
Ms.
Story
failed to lock her office and left her patient files vulnerable
to theft.
an email
to
(Doc. 39, pp. 9-10.)
from Ms.
Doughtie instructing Plaintiff and Ms.
lock the door to
Plaintiff
also
In support, Plaintiff submitted
their office when leaving.
submitted
Plaintiff's replacement,
a
declaration
stating she
from
Story
(Id. at
LaKeesha
23.)
Cooks,
"witnessed the door to the
office that I shared with Bridgett Story unlocked and open even
20
when
both
Ms.
Story
and
Medical records that was
I
was
Story's
employment
the
Health
Insurance
(XXHIPAA").
(Id.)
of
the
building.
(Cooks Decl. f 6.)
without supporting evidence,
Ms.
out
[sic] under my responsibility was
kept locked in my desk drawer."
asserts,
[sic]
because
Portability
Plaintiff
that Defendant
leaving
the
and
door
[sic]
terminated
open violated
Accountability
Act
The argument fails to raise a genuine issue
of material fact or show entitlement to summary judgment for at
least five reasons.
First,
almost
Plaintiff
three
months
filed
after
her
the
motion
deadline
for
summary
given
in
judgment
the
Court's
Scheduling Order,
and the Court is not required to consider it.
Young v.
Palm Bay,
2004) .
about
City of
Second,
Ms.
Plaintiff
Story's
alleged
Fla.,
358
failed
to
include
insubordination
Defendant's summary judgment motion,
minimum by Loc. R. 56.I.2
F.3d 859,
in
863
any
her
(11th Cir.
of
the
facts
response
to
which is required at a bare
(See doc. 36.)
2 Plaintiff's untimely motion also alleges
spoliation of
(1)
notes allegedly taken by Ms. McGuire during the February 1, 2013
meeting; and (2) an email exchange between Ms. Doughtie and Mr. Black
on January 25, 2013.
(Doc. 39, pp. 2-6.)
The first allegation is
based on mere speculation by Plaintiff that notes would have been
taken during such an important meeting.
(Doc. 39, pp. 4-5.) There is
no evidence to support a finding of spoliation. The second accusation
is without merit because Defendant produced the original email.
(Doc.
28, p. 19; Jason Rote Decl. M
2-5.)
21
Third,
the
declaration
whether Ms.
Cooks or Ms.
unlocked.
Fourth,
left
the
door
violation
locked.
of
the
termination
Ms.
she
order
fails
of
given to Plaintiff,
fails
did
so
from
to show that,
intentionally
Ms.
Doughtie
Plaintiff admits Ms.
because
Cooks
to
state
Story was at fault for leaving the door
Plaintiff
open,
Fifth,
from
the
to
and
in
keep
Story
willful
the
door
Story resigned in lieu of
HIPAA violations,
which means Ms.
if Ms.
the
same
option
Story was not treated more
favorably than Plaintiff.
C.
Even
if
Plaintiff
Elements
to
of
Rebut
Her
the
Could
Satisfy
Discrimination
Legitimate,
the
Claim,
Prima
She
Has
Nondiscriminatory
Facie
Failed
Reasons
Given for Her Termination.
If the plaintiff is able to establish a prima facie case of
discrimination,
the
employer
must
nondiscriminatory
reason
for
the
McDonnell
Corp.,
411
U.S.
Douglas
articulates
one
or
more
such
articulate
a
legitimate,
challenged employment
at
802-03.
reasons,
the
If
the
plaintiff
action.
employer
has
the
opportunity to come forward with evidence to establish that the
employerfs
articulated
discrimination.
Id.
at
To show pretext,
is
one
must
that might
meet
that
reasons
merely
pretexts
for
804.
and u [p]rovided that the proffered reason
motivate
reason
are
head
a
on
22
reasonable
and
rebut
employer,
it,
and
an employee
the
employee
cannot
succeed
reason."
more
by
simply
Chapman,
than
one
quarreling
with
229 F.3d at 1030.
legitimate,
If
the
wisdom
of
that
the employer proffers
non-discriminatory
reason,
the
plaintiff must rebut each of the reasons to survive a motion for
summary judgment.
Id. at 1037.
reason
by
proffered
discrimination unless
the
it
A legitimate nondiscriminatory
employer
is
not
is shown both that
a
the
reason was
and that discrimination was the real reason."
Center v.
Hicks,
Plaintiff
509 U.S.
does
502,
not
515
(1993)
dispute
that
"pretext
St.
for
false
Maryf s Honor
(citation omitted).
she
chose
to
rehang
the
banner in violation of the order from Ms. Doughtie to remove it,
and
that
could not
strength
she
refused
record
of
to
it.
attend
the
Ultimately,
Defendant's
reasons,
failing to rebut these legitimate,
her
termination,
Plaintiff
has
staff
meeting
Plaintiff
not
because
quibbles
their
with
truthfulness.
she
the
By
nondiscriminatory reasons for
failed
to meet
her
burden under
the McDonnell Douglas framework.
D.
Plaintiff's
Fatal
Retaliation
Defect
Defendant's
That
Claim
Plaintiff
Legitimate,
Suffers
Has
from
Failed
Non-Retaliatory
the
Same,
to
Rebut
Reasons
for
Her Termination,
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title
VII,
a plaintiff
protected
must
activity;
show:
(2)
(1)
she
23
she
engaged
suffered
an
in a
adverse
statutorily
employment
action;
and
(3)
she
established
a
causal
F.3d
1281,
1307-08
establishes
a
prima
production shifts to
articulating
a
(11th
facie
Cir.
case
between
the
Bryant v. Jones,
protected activity and the adverse action.
575
2009).
of
Once
retaliation,
the defendant to rebut
legitimate,
adverse employment action.
link
a
plaintiff
the
burden
of
the presumption by
non-discriminatory
reason
for
the
Id.
Even assuming Plaintiff can present a prima facie case of
retaliation,
she
has
failed
nonretaliatory reasons
to
rebut
Defendant's
for her termination,
as
legitimate,
discussed above
regarding Plaintiff's discrimination claim.
III.
The
(doc.
39) ,
Court
20),
DENIES
DIRECTS
Defendant,
GRANTS
the
CONCLUSION
Defendant's
motion
Plaintiff's motion
Clerk
to
enter
for
summary
judgment
for summary judgment
final
judgment
in
(doc.
favor
of
and CLOSES this civil action.
SO ORDERED
this &\/ aay of
March,
2016,
at
Augusta,
Georgia.
DAL
UNITEti STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
24
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?