Vanya v. City of Corrigan

Filing 39

ORDER ADOPTING 34 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 6/9/14. (ljw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
DANA VANYA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CORRIGAN,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 9:13-cv-85

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On April 29, 2013, Plaintiff Dana M. Vanya filed suit against Defendant, the City of
Corrigan, alleging claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq
alleging claims of employment discrimination based on sex, hostile work environment and
retaliation. The Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Judge Giblin entered a Report and Recommendation on May 23, 2014, recommending that
the defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. Doc. # 34. The plaintiff filed objections.
Doc. # 38.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 , 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and the Local Rules for
the Eastern District of Texas, the court has conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation, Plaintiff’s objections, and the record as a whole, and concludes that
Plaintiff’s objections are without merit.
Plaintiff’s objections aver that the magistrate judge did not properly consider her evidence
1

in determining that summary judgment should be granted. She argues that her evidence on the
failure to promote issue, the retaliation claim, and the level of pervasiveness as related to the hostile
work environment is sufficient to create an issue for a jury to consider. The record supports
the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the evidence does not raise a material issue of fact.
The plaintiff’s evidence - viewed in the most favorable light - does not offer anything
regarding her qualifications for the position she claims she was denied on the basis of her sex other
than her contention that she was more experienced than the officer who was put in the position. The
plaintiff failed to put forth evidence overcoming the evidence submitted by the defendant in support
of its decision on the promotion. Plaintiff provides nothing other than her own statements in support
of her position. Even viewing her testimony in the most favorable light, the plaintiff still fails to
establish that the officer who received the corporal position was similarly situated. This necessary
to support a prima facie discrimination claim for discrimination.
As for the hostile work environment claim, Vanya’s own testimony shows that she has no
recollection of how often the alleged sexual harassment occurred. She can only state that the alleged
conduct happened more than once. Even taken as true, this testimony does not establish the
necessary level of severity and pervasiveness to support a hostile work environment claim.
The plaintiff also contends that the magistrate judge erroneously found that her testimony was
insufficient to create a fact issue on the retaliation claim. However, the arguments she submits in
her objections do not change the fact that the evidence in the summary judgment record clearly
establishes legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons supporting the defendant’s decision to discipline
Vanya for various incidentsn in which she exhibited unprofessional conduct in the
course of her duties. The magistrate judge’s report addresses these issues in full, and the plaintiff’s
2

objections offer no evidence or argument providing a basis to overturn the magistrate judge’s
findings on the retaliation claim.
For these reasons, this court therefore agrees with the magistrate judge and overrules
Plaintiff’s objections.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Dana Vanya’s objections [Doc. #38 ] are
overruled. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 34] is ADOPTED.
Defendant, the City of Corrigan’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #21 ] is GRANTED. Final
Judgment will be entered by separate order.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9 day of June, 2014.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

3