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)
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?