Drake v. Science Applications International Organization
Filing
65
ORDER granting 52 Motion for Summary Judgment; affirming 62 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable David C Norton on April 11, 2019.(kwhe, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
ELLEN DRAKE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS
)
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
No. 2:17-cv-02664-DCN
ORDER
This matter is before the court on United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon
Baker’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) that the court grant defendant Science
Applications International Corporation’s (“SAIC”) motion for summary judgment. For
the reasons set forth below, the court adopts the R&R and grants SAIC’s motion for
summary judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises out of SAIC’s alleged discrimination against its former employee,
plaintiff Ellen Drake (“Drake”). Drake brought claims against SAIC for sex
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), age
discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”),
disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),
hostile work environment based on sex and age in violation of Title VII and the ADEA,
and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the ADEA. Despite Drake’s objection to the
R&R’s recitation of the facts, the court finds that the R&R ably recites the detailed facts
of the case, and because it is unnecessary to recapitulate the complaint, pleadings,
1
depositions, and exhibits constituting the factual record, this order dispenses with a
recitation thereof.
Drake filed her initial complaint on October 3, 2017, ECF No. 1, and
subsequently filed an amended complaint on December 7, 2017, ECF No. 14, and a
second amended complaint on September 18, 2018, ECF No. 44. On November 20,
2018, SAIC filed its motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 52. Drake responded to
the motion on December 17, 2018, ECF No. 59, and SAIC replied on December 27,
2018, ECF No. 61. On March 4, 2019, the magistrate judge issued the R&R,
recommending that the court grant SAIC’s motion for summary judgment as to all of
Drake’s claims. ECF No. 62. Drake filed objections to the R&R on March 18, 2019,
ECF No. 63, and SAIC replied to Drake’s objections on March 25, 2019, ECF No. 64.
The matter is now ripe for the court’s review.
II. STANDARD
A. R&R
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the court. Mathews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The recommendation carries no presumptive weight,
and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Id. at 270-71.
The court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge . . . or recommit the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court is charged with
making a de novo determination of any portion of the R&R to which a specific objection
is made. Id. However, de novo review is unnecessary when a party makes general and
conclusory objections without directing a court’s attention to a specific error in the
2
magistrate judge’s proposed findings. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.
1982). In the absence of a specific objection, the court reviews the R&R only for clear
error. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)
(citation omitted). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to
support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333
U.S. 364, 395 (1948).
B. Summary Judgment
Summary judgment shall be granted if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure
materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(c). “By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some
alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly
supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine
issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–48 (1986).
“Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Id. at 248. “[S]ummary
judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”
Id. “[A]t the summary judgment stage the judge’s function is not himself to weigh the
evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a
genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 249. The court should view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party and draw all inferences in its favor. Id. at 255.
3
III. DISCUSSION
Drake first objects to the R&R’s recitation of the facts in the factual background
portion of the R&R, arguing that they are improperly presented in a light most favorable
to SAIC. Drake then fills 21 pages of her objections with her recitation of the facts.
Drake also makes various objections about the R&R’s findings on her individual claims.
The court finds none of these objections convincing.
A. The R&R’s Recitation of Facts
Drake first argues that the R&R improperly drew its recitation of the facts
primarily from SAIC’s motion for summary judgment and from Drake’s second amended
complaint, which Drake explains consists only of allegations and not evidence. As a
result, Drake contends, the R&R views the facts in the light most favorable to SAIC.
However, this argument fails for several reasons. First, in considering the allegations of
the second amended complaint in its recitation of the facts, the R&R viewed the facts in
the light most favorable to Drake because they are Drake’s allegations. And despite
claiming that the R&R “does make rare cites to the Plaintiff’s exhibits Docket No. 59,”
ECF No. 63 at 7, the R&R contains numerous citations to Docket No. 59 and its exhibits,
which is Drake’s response to the motion for summary judgment. Indeed, this court has
counted at least 53 references to Docket No. 59 in the R&R. A review of the factual
background section of the R&R reveals a balanced recitation of the facts that are drawn
from both Drake and SAIC.
Next, Drake lists facts that she argues that the R&R failed to consider. However,
instead of explaining how the R&R failed to consider them, Drake simply restates her
version of the facts, which are nearly identical to the facts in her response to the motion
4
for summary judgment. In this section of her objections, Drake does not point the court
to areas of the R&R that did not consider certain facts or explain how the R&R failed to
consider them. 1 Instead, she just argues that “[t]he Court failed to consider the Plaintiff’s
actual facts sworn under oath that represent the actions of the Defendant and the Plaintiff
(sic) employment” and lists her entire rendition of the facts. ECF No. 63 at 7–29. Given
this conclusory objection and Drake’s failure to “direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations,” the court need only review the
R&R’s factual rendition for clear error. Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47. After considering
Drake’s objection and reviewing the record using the clear error standard, the court finds
that the R&R did not present the facts in the light most favorable to SAIC and that
Drake’s objection is without merit.
B. Objections to Individual Claims
In her objections, Drake also makes various arguments about each of her
individual claims. The court will address each in turn.
a. Discrimination Claims
Drake objects to the R&R’s treatment of her sex discrimination, age
discrimination, and disability discrimination claims. However, for these three claims,
Drake makes identical arguments in her objections as she did in her response to SAIC’s
motion for summary judgment. Compare ECF No. 59 at 36–38 with ECF No. 63 at 29–
30 (sex discrimination claim); compare ECF No. 59 at 38 with ECF No. 63 at 31 (age
discrimination claim); compare ECF No. 59 at 39 with ECF No. 63 at 31–32 (disability
1
There are some specific facts that Drake argues that the R&R specifically failed
to consider with respect to some of her individual claims. The court addresses those in its
consideration of Drake’s individual claims.
5
discrimination claim). A party’s objections to an R&R that simply restate the party’s
original argument before the magistrate judge are not “cognizable and specific”
objections. Weber v. Aiken-Partain, 2012 WL 489148, at *2 (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 2012); see
also Brockington v. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 2019 WL 1090724, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 8,
2019) (“[O]bjections that merely rehash arguments previously raised and considered by
the Magistrate Judge are insufficient to direct the Court to a specific error.”). Because
Drakes raises the same discrimination arguments, almost word-for-word, in her
objections as she did in her response to the motion for summary judgment, the court
“must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
accept the recommendation.” Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315.
After reviewing the record in this case, the applicable law, and the R&R under a
“clear error” lens, the court agrees with the R&R and finds that SAIC is entitled to
summary judgment on Drake’s sex discrimination, age discrimination, and disability
discrimination claims.
b. Hostile Work Environment
Drake argues that the R&R failed to consider the evidence she presented to show
that she was subjected to a hostile work environment. The evidence that Drake cites to
includes: (1) an incident regarding Drake’s formatting of an operator’s manual in
December 2016; (2) an incident related to Drake getting her car battery replaced in
December 2016; and (3) Drake’s claim that her supervisor stalked her in the parking lot.
However, Drake’s argument fails because the R&R did consider this evidence.
Moreover, the R&R found that Drake’s hostile work environment claim was entitled to
6
summary judgment because Drake did not present evidence on the other elements of the
claim, making this evidence unable to cure the deficiencies in Drake’s claim.
First, the R&R clearly did consider the evidence cited by Drake by both
mentioning this evidence and citing to the portions of Drake’s response to the motion for
summary judgment that describe the evidence. The R&R explains that Drake “suggests
that the following examples, among others, reflect a hostile work environment” and
mentions the operator’s manual incident, R&R at 25 (citing ECF No. 59 at 7–8), the car
battery incident, id. (citing ECF No. 59 at 7–9), and the stalking allegation, id. (citing
ECF No. 59 at 7, 21–22). After considering this evidence, the R&R went on to find that
Drake’s hostile work environment claim failed because, notwithstanding these examples,
Drake failed to produce the evidence that was needed to establish a hostile work
environment claim.
Specifically, the evidence cited by Drake all relates to the first element of a
hostile work environment claim, and the R&R found that the claim failed due to the lack
of evidence on the second and third elements. To prevail a hostile work environment
claim, “a plaintiff must show that there is (1) unwelcome conduct; (2) that is based on the
plaintiff’s sex [and/or age]; (3) which is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the
plaintiff’s conditions of employment and to create an abusive work environment; and (4)
which is imputable to the employer.” Mosby-Grant v. City of Hagerstown, 630 F.3d 326,
334 (4th Cir. 2010). The R&R found that Drake failed to present any evidence that the
allegedly hostile work environment was based on her sex and/or her age, that her sex
and/or age were the “but for” causes of her purported harassment, and that the alleged
conduct was so severe or pervasive as to alter Drake’s conditions of employment. The
7
incidents that Drake discusses in her objections are evidence of unwelcome conduct, not
evidence of the deficient elements identified by the R&R. As such, the R&R correctly
found that SAIC is entitled to summary judgment on Drake’s hostile work environment
claim.
c. Retaliation
In Drake’s final objection, she argues that the R&R “determine[d] that [Drake]’s
initial complaints were not protected and of course agrees with [SAIC] in their (sic)
delineation of the facts in contradiction to the requirements of Summary Judgment which
requires (sic) that the facts be in a light most favorable to [Drake].” ECF No. 63 at 34.
The elements of a Title VII or ADEA retaliation claim are (1) engagement in a protected
activity; (2) adverse employment action against the plaintiff; and (3) a causal link
between the protected activity and the employment action. Coleman v. Maryland Court
of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010) (Title VII); Johnson v. Mechanics &
Farmers Bank, 309 F. App’x 675, 684 (4th Cir. 2009) (ADEA). “Protected activity does
not include generalized employment-related complaints unrelated to Title VII-prohibited
discrimination.” Sung Kun Kim v. Panetta, 2012 WL 3600288, at *17 (E.D. Va. Aug.
21, 2012), aff’d, 516 F. App’x 268 (4th Cir. 2013); see also White v. Rice, 1995 WL
20796, at *4 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that “generalized verbal complaints to co-workers
and supervisors” are not protected activity under Title VII); Sara Kaye Ruffner v. MD
OMG EMP LLC, 2012 WL 3542019, at *3 (D. Md. Aug. 13, 2012) (“The employee
must, at least implicitly or indirectly, complain about or oppose prohibited
discrimination.”). The R&R determined that Drake’s initial complaints were not
protected activity because they did not allege discrimination or a hostile work
8
environment based on sex or age. These initial complaints include Drake’s complaints
“regarding her position in December of 2015 and 2016 because of the classification of
her position,” ECF No. 59 at 42, and Drake’s March 8, 2017 verbal complaint to Marcia
Saari, a human resources business partner. Id. at 27.
Drake does not provide any more information about her 2015 and 2016
complaints other than the quoted language above. Based on the description of the
complaints as being related to Drake’s position and the classification of her position, and
absent any reference to discrimination or a hostile work environment, the R&R correctly
concluded that these complaints were nothing more than “generalized employmentrelated complaints.” See Sung Kun Kim, 2012 WL 3600288, at *17. Drake does state
that when she made her verbal complaint on March 8, she said that she was being
subjected to a hostile work environment. ECF No. 59 at 27; ECF No. 59-10 at 13.
However, she does not state that she was subjected to a hostile work environment based
on her sex or age. Title VII and the ADEA only provide protection from work
environments that are hostile based on sex or age discrimination, not from generally
hostile work environments. Therefore, the R&R properly concluded that Drake’s initial
complaints were not protected activity but instead were generalized complaints that are
not protected by Title VII or the ADEA.
9
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons the court ADOPTS the R&R and GRANTS SAIC’s
motion for summary judgment.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
DAVID C. NORTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
April 11, 2019
Charleston, South Carolina
10
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?