Heath v. Bullitt County Board of Education et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 1/31/2012; 22 Motion for Summary Judgment SUSTAINED; all claims against Bullitt County Detention Center are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. cc:counsel, plaintiff pro se (TLB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-199-H

SHARON R. HEATH

PLAINTIFF

V.
BULLITT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
and
BULLITT COUNTY DETENTION CENTER AND
ADULT LEARNING CENTER

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Sharon Heath, filed this action against Defendants, purportedly her former
employers, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e,
et seq. Defendant, Bullitt County Detention Center (“BCDT”), moves for summary judgment on
all claims brought against it, arguing that Plaintiff was never within its employ. For the reasons
that follow, Defendant’s motion will be sustained.
Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A
genuine dispute exists if ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party.’” Spencer v. CSL Plasma, Inc., No. 3:10-CV-00262-H, 2011 WL 4054715, at
*2 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 12, 2011) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986)). “While the moving party must demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists,
in response, the non-moving party must move beyond the pleadings and present evidence in
support of its claim.” Id. (citation omitted).

Here, Plaintiff advances allegations of age-based and sex-based discrimination, and
hostile work environment. In order to assert such claims against her employer, Plaintiff must
establish her employment relationship with Defendants. No such factual allegations have been
pled in reference to BCDT. In fact, BCDT has submitted evidence to support the contrary, that
Plaintiff was actually employed by the Bullitt County Board of Education (the “Board”). BCDT
has produced both the employment contract between Plaintiff and the Board, and a letter
confirming Plaintiff’s hire by Bullitt County Public Schools. Plaintiff has not responded by
either challenging these facts or providing information in support of her claim. Because ample
time has passed since BCDT filed its motion, and the evidence it provided disproves any
employment relationship between Plaintiff and BCDT, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s
claims against BCDT are without merit.
The Court being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is
SUSTAINED, and all claims against Bullitt County Detention Center are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.

January 31, 2012

cc:

Counsel of Record

2