Byrnes v. City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi
Filing
58
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 47 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 3/18/2016 (scp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
BENTON BYRNES
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-19-KS-MTP
CITY OF HATTIESBURG
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matters is before the Court on Defendant City of Hattiesburg’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [47]. After reviewing the submissions of the parties, the record, and applicable law, the
Court finds that Defendants’ motion is well taken and should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
On February 27, 2015, Plaintiff Benton Byrnes (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint [1] against
Defendant City of Hattiesburg (“Defendant”). Plaintiff claims he was discriminated against and
suffered a hostile work environment because of Defendant’s failures in disciplining another
employee, Michael Means (“Means”), after he harassed Plaintiff. Plaintiff brings his claims under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended), 28 U.S.C. § 1981, the Rehabilitation Act,
and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff is claiming discrimination based his race, white,
and his disability, cerebral palsy.
Discovery concluded on January 15, 2016, and Defendant filed the current Motion for
Summary Judgment [47] on January 22, 2016.
II. DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment
if the movant shows that 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). “Where the burden of production at trial
ultimately rests on the nonmovant, the movant must merely demonstrate an absence of evidentiary
support in the record for the nonmovant’s case.” Cuadra v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 808,
812 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The nonmovant must then
“come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. “An issue is
material if its resolution could affect the outcome of the action.” Sierra Club, Inc. v. Sandy Creek
Energy Assocs., L.P., 627 F.3d 134, 138 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Daniels v. City of Arlington, Tex.,
246 F.3d 500, 502 (5th Cir. 2001)). “An issue is ‘genuine’ if the evidence is sufficient for a
reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Cuadra, 626 F.3d at 812 (citation
omitted).
The Court is not permitted to make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Deville
v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 164 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476
F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007)). When deciding whether a genuine fact issue exists, “the court must
view the facts and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party.” Sierra Club, Inc., 627 F.3d at 138. However, “[c]onclusional allegations and denials,
speculation, improbable inferences, unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic argumentation do not
adequately substitute for specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d
736, 744 (5th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Summary judgment is mandatory “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.” Brown v. Offshore Specialty
Fabricators, Inc., 663 F.3d 759, 766 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986)).
B.
Hostile Work Environment
2
In his Complaint [1], Plaintiff claims that Defendant discriminated against him by allowing
him to be subjected to a hostile work environment based on his race and disability. To prove a
hostile work environment claims, Plaintiff must show that:
(1) the victim belongs to a protected group; (2) the victim was subjected to
unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on a protected characteristic;
(4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment; and (5)
the victim’s employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to
take prompt remedial action.
Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. WC&M Enters., Inc., 496 F.3d 393, 399 (5th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff argues that the harassment he suffered from Means created a hostile work environment and
that Defendant is liable because sufficient remedial action was not taken. However, because
Plaintiff has failed to introduce any evidence that the alleged actions of Means were based on either
his race or his disability, the Court must grant summary judgment to Defendant. See Brown, 663
F.3d at 766 (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548).
It is not enough to establish that Plaintiff is a member of a protected class and that he has
been harassed—Plaintiff must show that he was harassed because of his membership in a protected
class. WC&M Enters., 496 F.3d at 399. This is a separate element of his claim that Plaintiff must
establish in order to survive summary judgment. Id. Plaintiff has put forth no evidence of animus
stemming from either his race or his disability that caused Means’ actions. In fact, Plaintiff admits
that Means never made any statement about either his race or disability. (Plaintiff Depo. [52-2] at
p. 6:12-24.) The Court knows of no precedent that would allow it to infer harassment based on
membership in a protected class simply because the sole victim of the alleged perpetrator was a
member of that protected class. Therefore, without evidence that the harassment suffered was based
on Plaintiff’s race or disability, the Court must find that he has failed to establish his discrimination
claims based on a hostile work environment.
3
Plaintiff’s arguments against summary judgment focus on the pervasiveness of Means’
harassment and Defendant’s failure to sufficiently remedy the situation. These arguments, though,
go towards the fourth and fifth elements of his claim. See WC&M Enters., 496 F.3d at 399 (“. . . (4)
the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment; and (5) the victim’s employer
knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action.”). Plaintiff
also attempts to make out additional claims of discrimination on the part of Defendant, but these
claims were not brought in the original Complaint [1] and cannot be the basis for defeating summary
judgment. Plaintiff does not address the fact that he has failed to bring forth any evidence, other
than his own subjective belief, that Means targeted him because of his race or disability.
Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to establish an essential element of his claims, the
Court must grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [47].
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [47] is granted.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 18th day of March, 2016.
s/ Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?