Bolden v. S.A.B.E

Filing 35

ORDER denying 30 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 08/22/2017. (thb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION HARVIS BOLDEN, JR. , Plaintiff, * v, CV 615-084 S.A.B.E., * Defendant, ORDER In this Title summary judgment. VII But retaliation because supporting his argument, 2012, Plaintiff has Plaintiff not Plaintiff's motion I. In he case, moves for offered any evidence (doc. 30) is DENIED. Background filed an EEOC charge against Defendant, alleging that he had been suspended from his position because of his race. (See Doc. 12-1 at 2-3.) The resolved that dispute through mediation. parties (See id. at 5-6.) only a few months after he returned to work, Defendant fired Plaintiff. response, filed another alleging that he was EEOC (Doc. 4 charge successfully at and But Plaintiff alleges, 4.) then Plaintiff, this in lawsuit, fired based on his race and age and in retaliation for filing the 2012 EEOC charge. Defendant 12.) The moved Court to dismiss granted Plaintiff's race- and Plaintiff's retaliation Plaintiff's Defendant's motion age-discrimination claim to complaint. with respect claims proceed. (Doc. but (See to allowed Doc. 19.) Plaintiff, now moves for summary judgment. II. Summary genuine 56(a). the judgment dispute entitled to U.S. in 941 to judgment under Liberty Lobby, the party, as is appropriate any as a material matter only fact of if "there and law." Fed. no movant the is is R. Civ. P. Facts are "material" if they could affect the outcome of suit view Summary-Judgment Standard the Inc., facts in Matsushita 574, [its] F.2d 587 governing 477 Elec. favor." 1428, U.S. 242, light the (1986), substantive most Indus. 248 law. (1986). favorable Co. v. v. The to Zenith Anderson Court must the non-moving Radio Corp., 475 and must draw "all justifiable inferences United States v. Four Parcels of Real 1437 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc) Prop., (internal punctuation and citations omitted). The Court, motion. moving party has the initial by reference to materials Celotex Corp. v. burden on file, Catrett, 477 of showing the the basis for the U.S. 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, 1993) . 2 F.3d 1112, When the non-movant has the burden of proof at of two trial, ways the movant may carry the — by negating an initial burden in essential element of the one non- movant 's case or by showing that there is no evidence to prove a fact necessary Clark, Inc., Adickes Corp. v. v. to 929 the non-movant' s case. 604, (11th F.2d S.H. Kress Catrett, & 477 Co., U.S. evaluate the non-movant's consider whether showing that that City it of curiam). meet the the there 398 317 is entitled to 120 144 (1986)). has 248, 1991) its 254 and the it must (11th first of fact law. Cir. can burden of material of & Celotex Court initial a matter Coats (explaining (1970) Before issues judgment as Clark v. opposition, met no genuine F.3d Cir. U.S. response in movant are Columbus, 606-08 See and Jones 1997) v. (per A mere conclusory statement that the non-movant cannot burden at trial is insufficient. Clark, 929 F.2d at 608. If - and only if - the movant carries its initial burden, the non-movant "demonstrat[ing] that precludes may avoid summary response summary judgment." by When the non-movant the non-movant must tailor If the movant presents negating a material evidence Id. to the method by which the movant initial burden. only that there is indeed a material issue of fact bears the burden of proof at trial, its judgment sufficient fact, carried its evidence affirmatively the non-movant to withstand a directed "must respond with verdict motion at trial 2 on the material F.3d at 1116. material fact, If the fact the sought to be negated." movant shows non-movant an must absence either Fitzpatrick, of show evidence that the on a record contains evidence that was "overlooked or ignored" by the movant or "come forward withstand alleged cannot a directed evidentiary carry repeating See with v. the verdict burden Ross, at 1117. on the F.2d contained 1032, must based The the (11th with on to the non-movant pleadings in 1033-34 respond sufficient trial Id. allegations non-movant at relying by 663 evidence motion deficiency." conclusory Morris Rather, its additional or by complaint. Cir. 1981). affidavits or as otherwise provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. In this action, the Clerk of the Court gave Defendant notice of the motion for summary judgment and informed it of the summary-judgment rules, the materials in opposition, 31.) The F.2d 822, notice 825 right file affidavits or other and the consequences of default. requirements (11th Cir. to 1985) of Griffith (per curiam), v. (Doc. Wainwright, 772 are thus satisfied. The time for filing materials in opposition has expired, and the motion is now ripe for consideration. Ill. It is unlawful under Discussion Title VII for an employer to discriminate against an employee because the employee opposed an unlawful employment practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). A plaintiff pursuing establish a prima Cooper Lighting, do so, a employment then Inc., action; 575 shifts to of (3) show 1281, he and 597 the defendant carries its burden, 1181 the "(1) (2) he (11th to S.A.B.E. has failure to Plaintiff Jr., plaintiff no [g]enuine adhere then "Undisputed Facts" also settlement 30-2, 30-3, triable and to from an link between Bryant The Ala. show true. or The any evidence the "Tardiness"; gear." a of mediation, the two and a letter concerning his firing. 30-4.) at of 2.) heading "Absence"; safety copy "I[,] Defendant under 2012 the Id. at 1182. explanation, the non- that 30 motion burden If the defendant (Doc. his v. Dep't of policy." wearing a adverse legitimate, then dispute, v. To in Plaintiff states: is following: "Not a 2010). must this company the agreement that without attached warning" reports, 30-1, to lists, "Insubordination"; Plaintiff swear engaged See Brown v. (11th Cir. 2007). 2009). articulate first Thomas action." Cir. In his motion for summary judgment, Bolden he causal proffered reason was pretext for retaliation. Harvis See suffered adverse must (11th Cir. established a 1307-08 F.3d 1160, 1363 that retaliatory reason for its actions. Transp., claims retaliation. activity; and the retaliation case must activity F.3d VII 506 F.3d 1361, protected protected Jones, facie plaintiff statutorily the Title (Id. ) parties' "employee (Docs. Plaintiff, however, has not provided any evidence showing that he is entitled to sugary judgment. Indeed, the only relevant evidence in the record before the Court are Plaintiff's two EEOC charges, which show, at most, that Plaintiff engaged xn * ,t and surrereu protected conduct ,nd suffered an adverse employment action, 4-v.^ fir<=!t But even assuming Plaintiff has shown the first two elements of • facie case of retaliation, Plaintiff has not offered any a prima facie case ui cai link betwe evidence establishing a causal link between his firing and the filing of the EEOC charge. Plaintiff's motion for Plaintxtr summary judgment therefore is DENIED. XV. Plaintiff's DENIED. motion Conclusion for summary judgment for summary j (doc. 30) is J) ,u:, s~$2*'"day of August, ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia this ^^_ day 2017. / HALL, 'ATES DISTRICT COURT ^RN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

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?