Griffith v. Louisiana State et al

Filing 426

ORDER denying 413 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Reference: 11-245, 11-535)(jrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TAMMY GRIFFITH & STACEY
GUICHARD

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 11-245 C/W 11-535

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL.

SECTION: "A" (1)

ORDER AND REASONS
[REF: All cases]
The following motion is before the Court: Motion to Review/Objection to
Magistrate Judge's Ruling and Motion for Attorney's Fees/Costs (Rec. Doc. 412)
filed by plaintiffs Tammy Griffith and Stacey Guichard. The State of Louisiana and Orleans
Parish Juvenile Court ("OPJC") oppose the motion. The motion, scheduled for submission
on April 9, 2014, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.
On February 26, 2014, the assigned magistrate judge denied Plaintiffs' motion to
compel (Rec. Docs. 399 & 412). Plaintiffs sought to compel production of documents
pertaining to an auto body Youth Works program that began during David Bell's tenure as
chief judge of OPJC. David Honore was an employee of the program. The magistrate judge
described the three requests that were the subject of the motion as seeking: 1) cancelled
checks for all stipends paid to juveniles in the program for January 2008 through December
2010; 2) time sheets for the program for the same period;, and 3) David Honore's cashed
payroll checks for the term of his employment with OPJC. (Rec. Doc. 412 at 1). After noting
that the only issue was relevancy, the magistrate judge denied the motion to compel in light
of the nature of the substantive causes of action being asserted. (Id. at 3). The magistrate
judge added as an aside that Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies as

1

to any claims for retaliation grounded on alleged improprieties at OPJC. (Id.).
The Court begins with the issue of exhaustion because the parties have devoted an
inordinate amount of briefing to this issue. The question of exhaustion vel non is irrelevant
to the discovery being sought because Plaintiffs' retaliation claims are brought under Title
VII.1 Title VII prohibits workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and
national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)-(2). Title VII also prohibits discrimination or
retaliation against an employee who has opposed any employment practice made unlawful
by Title VII, including filing a formal charge under Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Thus,
the first element of a prima facie case of Title VII retaliation requires the plaintiff to show
that she engaged in activity protected by Title VII. Willis v. Cleco Corp., No. 13-30217, 2014
WL 1379103 (5th Cir. Apr. 8, 2014). To the extent that Plaintiffs herein claim that they were
retaliated against because they filed sex discrimination charges with the EEOC, or engaged
in any of the investigatory conduct covered by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), those claims are
clearly actionable under Title VII, and no party has ever contended that those claims were
not properly exhausted.
But Title VII is not a whistleblowing statute. Title VII does not protect a party who
reports alleged malfeasance in a workplace when that malfeasance is not an employment
practice prohibited under the statutory scheme. The EEOC does not investigate claims of
workplace improprieties not related to a class protected by Title VII. Therefore, a plaintiff is
not required to exhaust with the EEOC a claim of retaliation based on attempts to expose
workplace malfeasance. In short, Title VII is not concerned with retaliation based on non-

As the Court has previously explained, the sole claims remaining in this case are Title
VII gender discrimination claims for retaliatory discharge, constructive discharge, and hostile
work environment against the State/OPJC, and a § 1983 claim against David Bell in his
individual capacity. (Rec. Docs. 353 at 14; 384).
1

2

protected activity and attempts to expose non-discrimination-based malfeasance related to
youth programs at the OPJC. The issue of exhaustion with the EEOC is therefore irrelevant
to the question of whether Plaintiffs are entitled to the discovery that they seek.
The Court turns its attention to the issue of relevancy. Again, the claims in this case
are grounded in gender-based discrimination. The discovery that Plaintiffs seek pertaining
to the auto body program and David Honore is not directly related to gender discrimination
but Plaintiffs suggest that they were implicated in irregularities as to the auto body program
and other suspect activities only after they filed EEOC charges of discrimination. (Rec. Doc.
412, Memo in Support at 10). Plaintiffs contend that the discovery they seek is relevant to
the credibility of the OPJC judges, all of whom will be witnesses at trial.
As the Court explained during the March 13, 2014 status conference, the OPJC and
its judges are not on trial for malfeasance. The OPJC will be on trial for Title VII violations,
and because the OPJC can only act through its member judges, the ability to challenge their
credibility as witnesses is important. But the Court has no intention of conducting minitrials on issues completely unrelated to Title VII discrimination under the guise of
challenging witness credibility. Plaintiffs can effectively challenge as pretext whatever nondiscriminatory reason OPJC offers for a Title VII adverse employment action, without
conducting a trial on the merits of any claimed improprieties. That said, the evidence sought
would not be admissible at trial and the Court cannot discern how it would lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(1). The magistrate judge's
ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A).
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Review/Objection to Magistrate

3

Judge's Ruling and Motion for Attorney's Fees/Costs (Rec. Doc. 412) filed by
plaintiffs Tammy Griffith and Stacey Guichard is DENIED.
May 6, 2014
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4