BRYANT v. BRENNAN
Filing
35
OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant's motion for summary judgment 32 and motion for summary ruling 34 are GRANTED. The Court directs the Clerk to ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT stating: Judgment is entered in favor of defendant Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, and against plaintiff Freshawna Bryant, who shall take nothing by way of the complaint. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 9/19/19. (ksp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
FRESHAWNA BRYANT,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEGAN J. BRENNAN,
POSTMASTER GENERAL,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:16 CV 534
OPINION and ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
This case stems from the former employment relationship between plaintiff
Freshawna Bryant and the United States Postal Service, represented in this suit by
defendant Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that
defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her race and gender in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 et seq. (“Title VII”), and 42
U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981“).
Defendant moved for summary judgment on October 25, 2018. (DE # 32.)
Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, failed to respond. Defendant moved for
summary ruling. (DE # 34.) The motions are now ripe for ruling.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 allows for the entry of summary judgment
against a party “who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an
element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of
proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “[S]ummary judgment is
appropriate–in fact, is mandated–where there are no disputed issues of material fact
and the movant must prevail as a matter of law. In other words, the record must reveal
that no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party.” Dempsey v. Atchison,
Topeka, & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 16 F.3d 832, 836 (7th Cir. 1994) (citations and quotation marks
omitted). “[T]he burden on the moving party may be discharged by ‘showing’–that is,
pointing out to the district court–that there is an absence of evidence to support the
nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325.
Because plaintiff failed to file a response to defendant’s motion for summary
judgment, defendant is entitled to summary ruling on the motion – that is, a ruling
without the benefit of plaintiff’s response. However, even in a summary ruling posture,
the court must find that “given the undisputed facts, summary judgment is proper as a
matter of law.” Wienco, Inc. v. Katahn Assoc., Inc., 965 F.2d 565, 568 (7th Cir. 1992).
III.
DISCUSSION
The legal analysis for discrimination claims under Title VII and Section 1981 is
identical, so the court merges its discussion of the two claims. Smith v. Chicago Transit
Auth., 806 F.3d 900, 904 (7th Cir. 2015). Little discussion is required, however.
It is well-known that for a discrimination claim to survive the summary
judgment phase, the evidence must permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the
plaintiff’s race or gender (or other proscribed factor) caused an adverse employment
action. Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760, 765 (7th Cir. 2016). The burden2
shifting framework articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973),
may assist a plaintiff in convincing a court that the evidence permits such a conclusion,
but that framework requires a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of discrimination
and, ultimately, pretext, in order to be successful. Id. Plaintiff has not attempted to take
advantage of McDonnell Douglas, and, in any case, the court sees no support for any
such argument in the record. Nor is there any evidence from which a reasonable
factfinder could more generally conclude that plaintiff’s race or gender caused an
adverse employment action. Ortiz, 834 F.3d at 765.
Plaintiff ultimately bears the burden of proof on the question of discrimination.
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 511 (1993). Thus, by pointing out an absence
of evidence on the question of discrimination, defendant has discharged her own
burden in connection with her motion for summary judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (DE # 32) and motion for summary
ruling (DE # 34) are GRANTED. The court directs the Clerk to ENTER FINAL
JUDGMENT stating:
Judgment is entered in favor of defendant Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster
General, and against plaintiff Freshawna Bryant, who shall take nothing
by way of the complaint.
SO ORDERED.
Date: September 19, 2019
s/ James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
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?