Crumpler v. Verizon Wireless

Filing 33

ORDER granting 25 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 02/28/2017. (maa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

CAROL CRUMPLER,

Plaintiff,

*
*

v.

*

CV

115-160

VERIZON WIRELESS,
Defendant.

*

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion for Summary

Judgment.

(Doc.

under Title VII

25.)

Plaintiff

suit

alleging race discrimination,

and a hostile work environment.

on the grounds

filed

that

evidence to support

Plaintiff

against

Defendant

sex discrimination,

Defendant seeks summary judgment

has failed

any of her claims.

to provide

The Court

sufficient

agrees with

Defendant.

I. Background

The

present

litigation

stems

Plaintiff's employment by Defendant.

from

the

In 2012,

Plaintiff

("ASM")

Augusta,

Assistant

Georgia.

Then,

Store

Manager

in 2013,

of

Plaintiff began working for

Verizon in January 2006 in Illinois.
to

termination

Verizon promoted
and

moved

her

to

Verizon promoted Plaintiff to

ASM of a superior retail location in the Augusta Exchange shopping
center.

In February 2014, Verizon received a complaint from Michelle

Cisco,

one of Plaintiff's subordinates.

Ms.

Cisco alleged that

Plaintiff took no corrective action after Plaintiff heard another
subordinate

make

all

use

the

African

term "cracker"

American

sales

reps

African American heritage month."
of Material

Facts,

told Plaintiff,
the comments

offensive,

response

investigation

Ms.

state

that

number

she

one

wanted

since

it

"to

was

(Doc. 25, Defendant's Statement

Cisco also

alleged that

after

she

the declarant and another employee that she found

hate that bitch."

In

p.5.)

and

(Id.)

to

and

she overhead Plaintiff tell the group "I

Ms.

Cisco's

concluded

complaint,

that

Verizon

Plaintiff

conducted

committed

code-of-conduct violations during the incident.

First,

an

multiple
Plaintiff

failed to take corrective action when one of her subordinates used

a racial epithet in her presence.

Investigation, p. 1.)

(Doc.

27-1, Verizon Internal

Second, Plaintiff made severely disparaging

remarks about an employee in the presence of other employees.
Third,

when

confronted by

another

manager

about

the

Id.

situation,

Plaintiff admitted that her conversation was "not HR appropriate."

(Doc.

also

25-6,

HR Consultant

concluded

question,

that,

Plaintiff

subordinates.

(Id.)

Declaration,

f 8.)

separate and apart

used

strong

The investigation

from

profanity

the

when

incident

coaching

in

her

Based on these findings, Verizon discharged

Plaintiff in early March 2014.

(Id^ at If 10.)

II.

Summary
genuine

judgment

dispute

entitled

56(a).

to

as

is

to

judgment

Standard of Review

appropriate

any

as

a

material
matter

only
fact

of

if
and

law."

"there

Fed.

no

movant

the

is

is

R.

Civ.

P.

Facts are "material" if they could affect the outcome of

the suit under the governing substantive law, and a dispute is
genuine

"if the

evidence

is

such that

a

reasonable

return a verdict for the non-moving party."
Lobby,

Inc.,

factual
party,
U.S.
in

U.S.

disputes

in

Matsushita

574,
[the

Parcels

banc)

477

587

not

Anderson,

Court,
motion.
Because

moving

by

party's]

the

Celotex

party

favorable

Co.

v.

favor."

and

to

view

non-moving

Radio

United

1437

or

the

must

Corp.,

475

justifiable inferences

citations

evidence

Court

Zenith

draw "all

F.2d 1428,

has

to

Corp.

standard

directed verdict,

The

States

v.

(11th Cir.

omitted).

Four

1991)

The

(en

Court

determine

credibility.

burden

showing

at 255.

reference

the

941

punctuation

477 U.S.

The

Indus.

Anderson v. Liberty

(1986).

most

and must

Prop.,

weigh

248

light

Elec.

non-moving

(internal

should

the

(1986),

of Real

242,

jury could

the

initial

materials
v.

for

on

Catrett,
summary

file,
477

the

U.S.

judgment

of

basis

317,

mirrors

323

the

for

the

(1986).

that

of

the initial burden of proof required by either

party depends on who carries the burden of proof at trial.
at

323.

a

Id.

When the movant does not carry the burden of proof at

trial, it may satisfy its initial burden in one of two ways — by

negating an essential element

of the non-movantfs case or by

showing that there is no evidence to prove a fact necessary to
the

non-movant's

F.2d

604,

Kress
477

by

606-08

& Co.,

U.S.

317

merely

398

the

issue of

must

(1970)

that

the

its

its

affirmatively

and Celotex Corp.

the movant

its

party

v.

v.

929

S.H.

Catrett,

initial burden

cannot

of

to

burden.

a

carries

that

there

its

meet

its

is

initial burden,

indeed

summary judgment."

burden

negating

Inc.,

929 F.2d at 608.

response

initial

& Clark,

(explaining Adickes

non-moving

"demonstrate

the

Coats

The movant cannot meet

Clark,

bears

tailor

carried

144

1991)

fact that precludes

non-movant

must

U.S.

and only if —

non-movant

Clark v.

(11th Cir.

declaring

—

See

(1986)).

burden at trial.

If

case.

proof

the
If

at

trial,

method
the

material

by

movant

fact,

a

Id.

When the

the

non-movant

which

the

presented

the

material

movant

evidence

non-movant

"must

respond with evidence sufficient to withstand a directed verdict
motion

at

trial

on

the

material

Fitzpatrick,

2 F.3d at 1116.

evidence

a

that

the

on

material

record

sought

to

be

negated."

If the movant shows an absence of

fact,

contains

fact

the

non-movant

evidence

that

must

was

either

"overlooked

show
or

ignored" by the movant or "come forward with additional evidence
sufficient to withstand a directed verdict motion at trial based

on the alleged evidentiary deficiency."

Id. at 1117.

The non-

movant cannot carry its burden by relying on the pleadings or by

repeating

conclusory

allegations

contained

in the

complaint.

See Morris v.
Rather,

the

Ross,

663 F.2d 1032,

non-movant

must

1033-34

respond

(11th Cir.
affidavits

with

1981).
or

as

otherwise provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

In
notice
the

this

action,

of the motion

summary

26.)

satisfied.
expired,

the

in opposition,
the

772 F.2d 822,
The

time

of

the

Court

gave

Plaintiff

summary judgment and informed her

rules,

Therefore,

Wainwright,

Clerk

for

judgment

other materials
(Doc.

the

to

file

affidavits

or

and the consequences of default.

notice

825

for

right

of

requirements

(11th Cir.

filing

1985)

materials

of

Griffith

(per curiam),
in

opposition

v.
are
has

and the motion is now ripe for consideration.
III.

Discussion

Plaintiff's complaint alleges that:

(1)

Verizon discriminated

against her because of her race;

(2)

her because

Verizon tolerated a

of her

environment.
abandoned

her

In

sex;

her

and

(3)

response

hostile

work

to

Verizon discriminated against

Defendant's

environment

hostile work

motion,

claim.

Thus,

Plaintiff
this

court

will only address her race- and sex-discrimination claims.

Plaintiff
claims

female

by

hopes

alleging

employees
the

to
that

prove

Verizon

differently
code

of

her

race-

treated

when

conduct.

As

and

sex-discrimination

other

they

non-black,

committed

evidence

of

her

non-

similar

violations

of

different

treatment,

she cites the disciplinary cases of several employees

who she claims Verizon treated less harshly than herself.

Thus,

Plaintiff

hopes

circumstantial

When

to

prove

her

disparate-treatment

1319,

a

plaintiff

sift

Douglas

1323

uses

through

that:

circumstantial

class

a

qualified

is

a

an

member

adverse

do

case,

the

the

discriminatory

prima

of

was

Id.

If

defendant

for

"must

its

case

facie

the

disparate

and

Plaintiff

employment

her

a

show

she

her

of

treated;

show

(2)

(3)

outside

to

for disparate

class;

action;

a

steps

First,
of

case

F.3d

the plaintiff must

protected

she

job."

reason

a

prove

447

three

claim.

facie

employees

than

uses

plaintiff's

employment

situated

favorably

to

a

race discrimination case,

similarly

more

facie

of

to

Orange Cty,

analysis

"To establish a prima

she

to

This

establish

in a

subjected

2006).

evidence

courts must apply the

Burke-Fowler v.

validity

Id.

(1)

treated

the

must

treatment.
treatment

analysis.

(11th Cir.

Plaintiff

through

evidence.

disparate treatment based upon race or sex,
McDonnel

claim

employer
protected

(4)

proves

she

was

a prima

legitimate,

action."

was

Id.

non

If

the

defendant makes such a showing, the plaintiff must then prove that
the

reason

offered

discrimination."

In

its

motion

First,

the

element

Second,
the

"merely

pretext

for

unlawful

Id.

arguments.

third

is

for

summary

judgment,

Defendant

makes

three

it asserts that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy

of

a

prima

facie

case

of

discrimination.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff might not have satisfied

second element

either -

that

she might

not have

suffered an

adverse employment action.
if

Plaintiff

failed

to

did

prove

Finally,

establish

that

a

Defendant argues that, even

prima

Defendant's

facie

valid

case,

Plaintiff

reasons

for

has

terminating

Plaintiff were really pretext for unlawful discrimination.
The

Court

showed

examines

Verizon

that

first

whether

treated

Plaintiff

similarly

sufficiently

situated

employees

differently based upon race or sex.

To determine if an employer

treated

differently,

similarly situated employees

the

Court must

determine if the comparators offered by Plaintiff truly qualify as

"similarly

situated."

discipline,

we
the

Brown,

similar

conduct

Burke-Fowler,
171

situated,

quality

prevent

F.3d

the

of

plaintiff

alleges

1364,

Eleventh

the

447

and

F.3d

1368

(11th

Circuit

comparator's

courts

from

are

at

disciplined

1323

Cir.

1999)).

requires

misconduct

second-guessing

be

Plaintiff

has

failed

to

provide

which a reasonable jury could find that
element of her prima facie

of

differently

similarly
than

herself.

nearly

v.

similarly

quantity

and

identical

employer's

to

reasonable

Id.

sufficient

evidence

from

she satisfied the third

employees

Plaintiff

be

the

case because she has

situated

different

Maniccia

To

"*that

accused of

in

(quoting

decisions and confusing apples with oranges.'"

examples

discriminatory

^whether the employees are involved in or

or

ways.'"

a

to determine whether employees are similarly situated,

evaluate
same

"When

who

offers

failed to offer

were
five

treated
potential

comparators who she claims also violated the code-of-conduct but

were

not

fired.

None

of

Plaintiff's

potential

comparators,

however, qualify as a similarly situated employee.
Plaintiff's
accused

them of

first

two

comparators

committing

different

fail

because

misconduct

than

Defendant
it

accused

Plaintiff of committing and Defendant disciplined them in the same
manner

Hiral

it

disciplined

Patel,

comments,
employee

making

an

asian male,

in

the

presence

code-of-conduct

fired

both

that

men,

a

customer.

remarks.
a

unrelated

despite

Thus,

first

accused of making

Sanders,

violations

despite being white.
demonstrate

of

Nathan

Plaintiff's

comparator,

inappropriate

and character attacks against another

discriminatory

second comparator,

to

was

false allegations,

racially

Verizon

Plaintiff.

He

was

Similarly,

white male,
to

being

not

racial

male,

accused of

Plaintiff's

was

accused of

discrimination.

and

Mr.

Sanders,

Plaintiff's first two comparators fail

Verizon

treated

similarly situated employees

differently or that it discriminated against her on the basis of
race

or

sex.

Plaintiff's
dissimilar.

remaining

comparators

Plaintiff's remaining comparators:

Leffew and Amanda Holland,
race

three

discrimination.

are

likewise

Jaton Turner,

Roby

were accused of violations other than

Verizon

determined

that

none

of

them

committed the violations of which they were accused and it imposed

no discipline.

Plaintiff's response to Defendant's motion

for

summary judgment contains no effort to establish that these three
comparators committed offenses similar to the offenses Defendant

alleges Plaintiff committed or that Defendant somehow treated them

differently than it treated Plaintiff.

In fact,

she admits that

they were accused of altogether different violations of the code
of

conduct.

American

Moreover,

and

Ms.

Mr.

Turner,

Holland,

like

like Plaintiff,

Plaintiff,

is

a

is an African

female.

Thus,

Plaintiff's three remaining comparators are not similarly situated
employees and do not provide evidence that Verizon participated in
race-

or

sex-discrimination.

The

Court

demonstrate
The

two

the

three

notes

that,

anything,

Plaintiff's

comparators

an absence of bias toward female or black employees.

comparators

who

comparators

were

fired were

who were

and one was a white female.

of

if

not

Thus,

non-black males,

fired,

one

was

a

and

black male,

even if the law allowed the use

comparators who engaged in different employee misconduct

the
have

alleged
failed

misconduct
to

of

the

demonstrate

plaintiff,
a

of

bias

Plaintiff

toward

black

would
or

than

still
female

employees.

Plaintiff failed to establish valid comparators and presented

no

other

circumstantial

discrimination.

Thus,

evidence

suggesting

racial

or

sexual

Plaintiff did not establish a prima facie

case of disparate treatment and her claim fails.

Even if Plaintiff did provide valid comparators, however, her
claim still fails because Defendant has shown that its reasons for

firing Plaintiff were not pretext.

If a plaintiff proves a prima

facie case, then "the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut this

inference in presenting legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for
its

employment action."

Holifield v.

Reno,

115

F.3d 1555,

(11th Cir. 1997). This burden is "exceedingly light."

1565

Id.

Defendants have met this burden by providing evidence of the
conclusions

it

investigation
Resource

of

came

to

the

witnesses

who

as

aided

well

multiple allegations against
testimony

against

and

detailed

Plaintiff.

The

interviewed

Plaintiff.

They

Human

seventeen

substantiated

Plaintiff with corroborating witness

that

violations.

They

African American female.

comprehensive

Verizon

as

and determined

of-conduct

a

allegations

Consultants

different

after

Thus,

Plaintiff

also

committed multiple

replaced

Plaintiff

code-

with

an

Defendants have demonstrated that

its reasons for firing Plaintiff were not mere pretext.

But,

Plaintiff does not lose just because the Defendant meets

its burden of showing that the action lacked pretext.
still

has

"the

articulated

pretext

reason

for

Plaintiff,

opportunity
for

the

to

demonstrate

adverse

discrimination."

however,

offers

no

that

employment

Holifield,
such

the

defendant's

action

115

reason.

Plaintiff

is

F.3d
Her

at

a mere

1565.

response

to

Defendant's motion for summary judgment is devoid of any factual

or inferential allegations which might support an assertion that

the reasons put

forth by

Defendant

were mere

pretext.

Thus,

Plaintiff has failed to prove any ulterior motive by Defendant and
cannot succeed on her race- or sex-discrimination claims.

10

IV.

Because

Conclusion

Plaintiff failed to establish valid comparators and

could not rebut Defendant's proof that it had non-discriminatory
reasons

for

discrimination

firing

Plaintiff,

claims

Defendant's motion

fail.

Plaintiff's

Therefore,

for summary judgment.

race-

the

(Doc.

and

Court
25.)

sex-

GRANTS

The Clerk

shall ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff
and CLOSE this

case.

ORDER ENTERED
February,

at

Augusta,

Georgia,

this ^7$*^ day of

2017.

HALL

IITED/STATES

DISTRICT

JUDGE

iRN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

11