Clark v. Western Tidewater Regional Jail
Filing
52
OPINION AND ORDER that 44 WTRJA's Second Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. This Opinion and Order shall constitute the final judgmentof the Court in this matter, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to closethe case. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Bradford Stillman and filed on 5/9/2012. Copy to Plaintiff as directed.(rsim)
FILED
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT
COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGIN!
MAY
Norfolk Division
PAMELA
S.
9 2012
CLERK. US DISTRICT COURT
CLARK,
NORFOLK. VA
Plaintiff,
v.
Case
WESTERN
No.:
2:llcv228
TIDEWATER
REGIONAL
JAIL AUTHORITY,
Defendant.
OPINION AND
Pursuant
that
the
Defendant
filed
a
on
the
Court
Second
Supplemental
issued
Rule
February
29,
2012,
Regional
Jail
Authority
Motion
against
for
Summary
Plaintiff
Clark,
who
is
proceeding
pro
se.
Roseboro
v.
Garrison,
528
F.2d
WTRJA's
briefs
March
25,
Second Motion
that
for
Summary
and
the
time
considerers
she
2012,
for
ECF
in
No.
submissions
WTRJA's
Second
also
Clark
Summary
submitted
Judgment.
for
WTRJA
Judgment
S.
Nos.
dated
44-45.
Pamela
ECF
letter
Scheduling
on
2012.
also
16(b)
Tidewater
Western
memorandum
22,
to
ORDER
served
See
47.
(4th
Cir.
asked
the
to
passed.
for
on
WTRJA's
has
R.
not
Notice
7 (K) ;
to
rule
first
filed
see
In
evidence
Accordingly,
Summary
March
1975).
Court
based
on
Roseboro
309
WTRJA
Motion
a
43,
supporting
("Clark")
Civ.
Judgment
No.
("WTRJA")
and
Local
response
has
Clark
ECF
Order
a
the
Judgment
a
on
and
Motion
Reply,
Court
fully
briefed
below,
and
ready
for
WTRJA's motion
I.
Clark
Regional
white
{the
2008,
2009.
sex,
21,
6,
She
race,
"Jail")
through
a
2011,
of
her
which
the
Court
Specifically,
failed
to
this
notice
that
no
merits
action
of
treatment
16 (b)
Court
on
Clark's
genuine
first
granted
Based
that
of
On
the
its
a
her
that,
of
sexual
a
facie
record,
sexual
as
forth
material
for
harassment
officer
WTRJA
to
sue
R.
case
of
for
the
claim
from
November
claims
on
of
April
from
the
38.x On June
judgment,
denied
matter
in
law,
part.
Clark
had
discriminatory
Court
was
existed
and
on
summary
and
fact
Tidewater
alleging
right
however,
harassment
jail
("EEOC").
part
prima
the
dispute
Clark's
set
Western
against
motion
in
held
demonstrate
termination.
conclude
filed
at
termination
discrimination
receiving
WTRJA
reasons
probationary
date
commenced
worked
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
28,
the
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
who
as
the
disability
after
For
GRANTED.
female,
timely
and
2011,
is
PROCEDURAL AND
a
Jail
October
10,
is
disposition.
could
not
time-barred
concerning
race-based
or
the
disparate
claims.
February
hearing
Dumville,
at
Esq.,
28,
2012,
which
the
Clark
appeared
Court
held
appeared
on
pro
behalf
of
a
Supplemental
se
WTRJA.
1 "R.
###" refers to the record of the parties'
Court
and
corresponds
hand corner
of
to
the
PageID#
each page.
-2-
located
and
in
S.
Rule
Lawrence
The
Court
filings with the
the
upper
right
subsequently
ECF
No.
file
43,
all
2012.
issued
a
which,
among
dispositive
WTRJA
Supplemental
other
motions
timely
filed
Rule
things,
on
or
the
16(b)
directed
before
instant
5:00
Rule
16(b)
Order.
In
WTRJA
argues
that
Clark
cannot
demonstrate
claim
for
sexual
harassment
liable
for
work
Clark
the
cannot
treatment
facts,
v.
Cir.
Indus.,
the
Dep't
and
763
the
elements
work
in
2007),
harassment.
light
most
Terry's
604,
Floor
610
that
747
Fashions,
(4th
WTRJA
claim.
Cir.
to
Inc.
is
a
her
not
that
disparate
following
Clark,
134,
v.
1985),
of
argues
The
F.3d
28,
the
that
race-based
favorable
Justice,
elements
further
a
to
to
memorandum,
harassment,
It
environment
Juvenile
F.2d
of
parties
pursuant
the
and
Order,
on March
supporting
sexual
time-barred,
sexual
hostile
S.C.
Inc.,
is
demonstrate
construed
Gilliam
(4th
or
environment
claim
alleged
its
the
p.m.
motion
Supplemental
hostile
Scheduling
are
see
135
n.l
Burlington
pertinent
to the resolution of the instant motion.2
A. Alleged Sexual
Shortly
Lieutenant
called
leaning
into
R.
back
2 The Court's
facts
of
commencing
Phillips,
her
questions.
after
this
his
312.
in
Clark's
his
chair
January 26,
case
in
and
this
and
2012,
greater
employment
supervising
office
During
Harassment
began
in
officer
asking
conversation,
touching
October
Lt.
himself.
Opinion and Order
detail.
-3-
ECF No.
41.
at
her
the
2008,
Jail,
personal
Phillips
Id.
He
was
had
lays out
a
the
visible
erection.
substance
of
ask
to
her
incident
her
and
After
calling
for
aware
to
himself
to
officers.
Phillips
October
On
on
was
a
not
regular
in
female
perform
R.
9,
which
officer
R.
without
authorization.
session
training
Lt.
not
the
played in
Clark's
duties
privileges
overtures
and
is
Jail
or
was
the
also
exposed
officers
for
were
male
participate
only
in
R.
332,
with
Lt.
and
the
disciplined
block
335,
Phillips,
requested
340.
she
During
Clark
a
was
time
Lt.
during
the
Clark
for
computer
access.
-4-
supervising
the
refused
meeting
3 The record does not disclose the role that Lt.
have
to
favors
witness
that
Phillips
gates
record
did
Lt.
began
Clark
the
sexual
of
he
access3
female
the
30.
2009,
cell
which
or
313.
certain
at
her
fun
assigned
197-98.
officer
in
sexual
was
249,
perform
to
R.
the
reported
made
computer
acknowledges
her
all
disciplinary
and
however,
Clark
12,
the
male
She,
meeting.
April
a
touch
Phillips,
denied
as
R.
did
subjected
2008
breaks.
and
85.
conduct.
and
such
Lt.
She
not
her,
the matter.
basis.
recall
Clark
at
with
trained
officers
opening
her
daily
did
Id.
laughed
conversation
other
a
favors.
who
cannot
Phillips
investigate
take
to
this
to
instances
of
asked
she
to
ability
in
stupid
which
afforded
failed
Clark
Lt.
sexual
superiors,
Clark's
her
Although,
conversation,
perform
to
Phillips,
the
Id.
first
to
sign
with
the
Phillips might
superintendent.
called
her
back
Lt.
Phillips
she
was
it
to
Jail
the
and
be
After
his
office.
visibly
to
see
write
what
officials,
incident
Clark
335.
to
was
going
...
R.
and
subsequently
happens."
issued
a
to
R.
336.
different
to
R.
night
happy with her work and her new supervisor.
Officer
attests
Tiffany
that
Lt.
Finn,
Phillips
experienced
negative
officer.
198.
Jail,
loss
R.
Lt.
of
composure,
insubordination.
discipline
for
of
to
was
and
repeatedly
320-329.
sex or
during
that
The
Jail
where
she
that
warned
R.
the
Jail,
she
too
as
an
year
employment
at
the
disciplined
for
subordinates,
and
and
these
race-based behavior.
and
first
to
was
112.
Clark
Clark's
of
2009,
at
her
try
investigated
333-34.
86,
heard
complained
17,
shift
R.
statements
None
"just
coworkers
abused
during
derogatory
R.
Clark's
verbally
treatment
Prior
Phillips
one
to
Clark
April
team.
the
he
security
on
he
meeting,
that
her
After
of
Clark,
second
Clark
challenged
director
Clark
the
told
recommendation
a
transferred
He
and
released
During
Id.
up
Jail's
Phillips
Id.
angry.
him
the
transferred
Lt.
instances
involved
315.
B. Alleged Disparate Treatment Based on Race
Clark
on
[of
account
the
also
of
jail]
evidence
occasions
of
on
alleges
being
is
a
90%
that
white
she
was
received
female
(APPROX.)
discrimination,
which
she
because
black."
Clark
treated
-5-
unfavorable
R.
treatment
the
"racial
9-10,
196,
has
provided
less
favorably
a
make
199.
As
list
than
up
of
black
female
officers,
including
two
instances
in
which
she
was
"written up" for misconduct but black female officers were not.4
R.
199.
She
was
forced
her
also
to
sergeant
cites
racial
attend defensive
with
a
able to participate
discrimination
tactics
physician's
as
training
note
stating
in excessive exercise.
R.
the
reason
after
that
she
presenting
she
was
not
complaint
of
9.
C. Exhaustion of Remedies
WTRJA
claims
harassment
employee.
or
R.
Personnel
that
other
31,
60,
harassment
and
stating
encouraged
time
If
of
the
if
R.
46.
employees
make
appropriate
claims
in
She alleges that
descriptions
against
excerpt
an
handbook
another
from its
defining
sexual
it
clear
that
sexual
to
such
be
action
the
harassment
offender,
behavior
resolved by
is
notify
is
the
repeated,
his
or
her
are
at
the
offensive.
employee
the
or
employee
supervisor
or
officials.
that
positions
112,
submitted
experience
cannot
immediately
behavior.5 R.
4
who
offensive
Clark
a
that:
situation
should
filed
conduct
Procedure
occurrence,
the
other
to
WTRJA has
and
Employees
never
objectionable
70.
Policy
Clark
of
she
notified
command
no
about
less
than
five
Lieutenant
Jail
Phillips's
313.
there were
actually
six instances,
reference
the
race
of
but only two of her
the
other
officers.
5 The record reflects that Clark notified a sergeant and corporal
about
the
October
that
the
Jail's
Administration
2008
meeting
Director
investigated
with
of
Lt.
Phillips,
Security
the April
12,
2009,
and
R.
313,
and
Director
of
meeting,
R.
333.
Clark
November
sex,
20,
a
charge
2009,
alleging
R.
an
Amended
retaliation.
35.
WTRJA
2009,
and
December
2010.
of
R.
1,
244.
dismissal
On
her
II.
Under
Rule
summary
as
judgment
as
"material"
Anderson
to
a
jury
granted
fact
law."
it
might
could
EEOC
R.
and
of
R.
U.S.
2010,
sent
of
if
alleging
age,
and
charge
September
Clark
the
Civil
"there
movant
Civ.
242,
a
Clark
initial
on
race,
a
20,
notice
STANDARD
the
if
the
on
38.
the
affect
return
basis
13,
charge
only
only
of
Rules
Fed.
477
EEOC
P.
is
is
no
A
of
verdict
for
A
"is
the
fact
the
(1986).
evidence
genuine
entitled
56(a).
outcome
248
Procedure,
to
is
case.
dispute
such
that
non-moving
Id.
party
responsibility
motion,"
material
(1986).
is
sue.
Federal
of
if
the
JUDGMENT
"genuine"
reasonable
of
the
be
amended
to
fact
a
its
right
the
disability,
notice
2011,
Lobby,
material
The
3,
on
the
Discrimination
sex,
the
Liberty
of
party."
of
with
September
of
received
material
matter
only
v.
of
should
any
On
race,
SUMMARY
56
judgment
dispute
on
February
and of
discrimination
Charge
based
R.
discrimination
247-50.
discrimination
on
of
disability.
and
filed
filed
seeking
of
and
fact.
This
summary
informing
the
demonstrating
Celotex
burden
"may
district
the
Corp.
be
judgment
of
Catrett,
discharged
-7-
court
absence
v.
"bears
by
of
a
the
the
basis
genuine
477
U.S.
initial
for
dispute
317,
323
'showing'—that
is,
pointing
out
evidence
to
the movant
to
the
support
makes
depositions,
for
specific
must
favorable
763
F.2d
with
view
to
at
Herbert,
563
evidence
is
of
law,"
Consol.
the
Coin
must
Caterers
477
III.
treatment
that
Phillips
as
has
harassment
under
U.S.
(explaining
that
in
at
F.3d
is
Am.
or by
the
on
file,
issue
Although
the
light
Fashions,
summary
Arms
most
Inc.,
judgment
Moreover,
prevail
545
the
Int'l.
if
as
judgment.
542,
required
a
v.
"the
matter
O'Connor
(4th
Cir.
v.
251-52).
Sexual
construed
after
Title
Indus.,
defeat
party must
summary
If
325.
genuine
a
in
2009).
56
claim
Burlington
at
1995)
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
began
a
is
Floor
evidence,"
grant
of
admissions
and
Terry's
Cir.
absence
Id.
omitted).
Corp.,
A.
Court
there
whole
one
an
affidavits,
and
"cannot
(4th
that
case."
own
that
see
of
82
one-sided
Court
her
a
nonmovant
78,
(quoting Anderson,
The
as
is
nonmoving party
(quotations
scintilla
F.3d
so
showing
nonmovant,
the
the
interrogatories,
record
there
party's
and by
324
the
610,
a
showing,
to
at
the
merely
a
facts
Id.
court—that
nonmoving
pleadings
answers
trial."
Court
the
such
"to go beyond the
designate
district
Inc.
the
Clark's
the
for
VII
Harassment Claim
of
v.
allegations
October
hostile
the
work
Civil
Ellerth,
absence
of
-8-
a
2008
of
unfavorable
meeting
with
environment
Rights
524
tangible
Act
U.S.
of
sexual
1964.
724,
employment
Lt.
See
753-54
action
resulting
sexual
from a
plaintiff's
an
demands,
categorized
Virginia,
hostile
as
for
work
a
hostile
172,
opportunities,
evidence
175
extra
among
WTRJA
for
a
(4th
work
has
Cir.
and
1998)
supervisor's
is
(examining
her
she
that
in
v.
whether
threatened
professional
refused
Clark
find
properly
Reinhold
supervisor
after
to
a
claim)/
denied
demonstrated
jury
to
harassment
where
things,
reasonable
submit
environment
existed
other
to
sexual
work
environment
with
advances).
action
F.3d
151
claimant
refusal
his
lacks
her
sexual
sufficient
favor
on
this
claim.
Before
claim,
to
the
examining
Court
establish
file
a
the
alleged
of
2000e-5(e)(1);
&
n.3
claim.
Rights
alleged
with
that
possesses
"deferral
her
EEOC
on
first
November
actionable
VII
meaning
EEOC
the
to
§
that
occurred
-9-
may
rely
claimants
must
within
Coll.,
...
which
300
300
Clark's
between
400,
405
to
file
on
Human
relief
seek
from"
makes
Virginia
Clark
male
claim
January
of
U.S.C.
days
Council
a
days
42
F.3d
2000e-5(e)(1)).
from
300
See
have
Virginia
harassment
harassment
Clark
VII
practice.
practices,
alleging
that
the
claimants
U.S.C.
sexual
conduct
Title
Lynchburg
"authority
2009,
conduct
what
with
because
(quoting
charge
20,
v.
employment
state")
on
Clark's
Virginia,
Title
EEOC
the
of
employment
Edelman
the
unlawful
In
discrimination
(explaining
charge
merits
determine
unlawful
§
a
must
the
charge
the
filed
supervisor
covered
25,
a
2009,
any
and
November
20,
2009.
The
October
2008
falls
outside
Opinion
and
that
it
could
statute
read
of
in
light
separate
employment
101,
permits
before
work
the
limitations
at
Supp.
2d
Nat'l
As
as
an
as
See
Summary
facts
extend
26,
in
the
in
2012,
concluded
Judgment
the
on
record,
suggested
to
in
that
October
536
U.S.
the
2008
Edwards
Va.
one
v.
2011);
-10-
v.
2008
part
a
hostile
the
statute
of
118;
Gilliam,
474
consider
Lt.
to
of
Clark's
acts
and
Murphy-Brown,
v.
days
the
related
Lewis
doctrine
300
of
536
to
claim,
unitary
Morgan,
contributing
at
series
'unlawful
than
part
Court
as
a
violation
within
sufficiently
comprise
(E.D.
conduct
harassment
be
Corp.
as
of
an
occurred more
charge
as
for
composed
constitute
occurred
October
must
to
EEOC
long
is
continuing
that
Morgan,
practice."
621
Phillips
January
Clark,
Passenger
the
acts
filed
sexual
period
607,
such,
Accordingly,
"so
Lt.
nevertheless
the
claim
R.R.
environment
environment
employment
claim might
its
for
to
collectively
claim
behavior
meeting
because
favorable
consider
period.
limitations
2008
to
141.
Phillips's
work
that
plaintiff
work
Court
Motion
environment
(2002).
environment
hostile
F.2d
work
practice.'"
courts
the
In
and
continuing violation doctrine.
acts
117
41,
grounds
most
Clark
window.
WTRJA's
harassment
hostile
between
that
NO.
grant
under the
"A
U.S.
not
sexual
incident
ECF
limitations
the
Clark's
of
Order,
meeting
to
hostile
within
the
ongoing
October
unlawful
L.L.C.,
Norfolk
the
S.
760
F.
Corp.,
271
F.
Supp.
WTRJA's
2008
2d
contention
event
November
As
that
807,
to
20,
that
for
has
provided
It
temper
Lt.
is
attempting
of
which
after
she
it
her
time
shortly
harassment
supervision.
occurred
for
a
on
him
Court
agrees
linking
within
break
medical
at
the
the
code
Clark
the
300
with
October
days
within
the
evidence
linking
it
a
of
on
three
Lt.
when
for
an
inmate
was
also
though
the
period,
lost
who
other
She
refused
his
officers
alleges
Lt.
has
be
access
received
that
such
Phillips's
aforementioned
Clark
temper
appeared to
computer
under
her
conduct
presented
no
2008 meeting.
occasions
-11-
he
lost
incidents
Phillips
denied
time
6 The record also indicates that Lt.
infractions
when
conduct
accused
Other
as
Clark
Phillips
subsequently
time
the October
because
Lt.
2009.
events
serve
harassing
that
a
her
might
conduct
12,
time
that
limitations
to
and
identify
that
alleged
employment.
during
assuming
2008
April
even
commencing
Even
on
to
period
record,
Clark
and
Jail
constant
difficult
which
include
seizure.6
after
was
a
is
October
from
report
occurred
safety
The
evidence
limitations
dates
complains
a
it
reprimanding
called
experiencing
during
2003).
lacks
Phillips's
to
request
she
the
evident
while
of
Clark's
Va.
that
matter,
within
"anchors"
his
Clark
harassment
initial
occurred
occurred.
(E.D.
2009.
an
not
812
Phillips counseled Clark for
in November
2008.
R.
332.
To
show
period
is
extends
that
part
into
demonstrate
Supp.
2d
F.3d
321,
of
328
Circuit's
(5th
conclusion
of
employment
were
perpetrated
period
harassment
claim.
536
The
U.S.
same
complains.
this
to
verbal
nature
subsequently
October
speculation
because
A
judgment
she
on
and
Yet,
Court
affirmed
the
same
and
hostile
must
760
F.
586
Passenger
the
involve[d]
pre-
that
Comm'n,
Railroad
relatively
managers"
of
that
abuse
Lt.
refused
Eighth
the
same
frequently,
and
post-limitations
work
of
2008
environment
entirely
denial
of
Indeed,
the
only
Clark's
subsequent
cannot
which
frequently
incident
is
was
of
declaration
Clark
and
alleged
party
basis
Finn's
Phillips
his
conduct
Phillips
October
propositioned
to
the
Lt.
Officer
the
verbal
that
the
National
occurred
Edwards,
Transp.
"incidents
committed
incident
nonmoving
where
part
experienced.
2008
In
Miss.
practice
plaintiff
related."
v.
Supreme
same
contends
abuse,
the
are
"the
limitations
120-21.
allegedly
from
the
person
contention.
Phillips
the
that
was
at
Clark
2009).
actions,
by
acts
the
employment
period,
Stewart
Cir.
outside
unlawful
separate
Morgan,
type
her
single
(quoting
v.
occurring
limitations
the
621
Corporation
a
the
that
at
harassment
subjected
corroborates
in
which
different
privileges
thing
Lt.
in
that
she
linking
the
treatment
retaliating
Clark
is
against
her
her
advance.
defeat
speculation
-12-
a
and
motion
for
conclusory
summary
statements
alone.
v.
Causey v.
Hardy,
769
Balog,
F.2d
failed
to
other
213,
harassment
related,
must
determine
under
the
Title
(2)
was
work
VII
for
that
in
"(1)
the
working
a
to
F.3d
241-42
234,
welcome
the
Lt.
to
she
demonstrate
because
her
harassment
(4)
was
sex,
and
the
sufficiently
meeting
could
find
as
part
the
of
Court
WTRJA
liable
suffered
allegedly
environment
within
unwelcome;
(3)
pervasive
that
some
First
It
is
the
within
the
Court
sufficiently
severe
for
imputing
Union
she
or
not
harassment
abusive
Nat'l
that
Bank,
Clark
because
suffered
statutory
need
the
'sex' ;
an
However,
the
her
exists
clear
treatment
plaintiff
create
basis
v.
a
of
that
to
Smith
treatment.
claim,
^because
2008).
that
supervision
has
meeting
are
Beale
Clark
Accordingly,
harassed
or
Cir.
Phillips's
of
was
Phillips's
Because
2008
2008
jury
she
work
was
employer."
(4th
the
1998);
period.
hostile
and
1985).
claim.
harassment
severe
environment;
Cir.
complains
reasonable
harassment
liability
failed
the
that
sufficiently
she
consider
limitations
succeed
show:
a
{4th
October
environment
whether
statute of
To
must
hostile
802
Cir.
the
which
cannot
795,
(4th
that
of
Court
F.3d
214
demonstrate
the
Clark's
162
did
pervasive
or
hostile
work
not
she
has
under
Lt.
time-frame
address
202
whether
imputable
was
the
to
WTRJA.
Remarks
need
and
not
sexually
be
conduct
comprising
explicit
or
-13-
a
specifically
environment
directed
at
the
plaintiff
to
Bank,
F.3d
202
be
women
can
language
her
rarely
533
an
that
of
and
for
maliciously
work
women
1999)
("It
assaults
and
expressions
sex-based
animus
desire.").
A
raises
inference
been
the
the
treatment.
The
that
target
First
denying
at
the
her
of
of
her
in
Jail
that
an
female
support
allegation.
Officer
this
Finn's
for"
a
culture
she
Other
is
the
-14-
has
than
only
in
Cir.
and
language
189
F.3d
that
more
misdirected
the
like
sexual
evidence
would
or
discriminatory
at
have
242.
consists
her
Although
which
provided
Clark's
not
that
she
calling
manner.
an
presence
Sheahan,
complains
privileges,
recruits,
declaration
F.3d
of
employees
sexist
present
sex,
as
(4th
male
sounded
than
her
202
334
difference
conduct
Clark
overzealous
propositioned
no
rather
Bank,
which
tolerated
v.
epithets
offensive
certain
Smith
status
advances.");
326,
though
Nat7!
remarks
hostile
where
nevertheless
"but
as
the
plaintiff's
makes
the
must
Union Nat'l
conduct
Phillips
yelling
plaintiff
demean
sexual
even
plaintiff);
by
F.3d
in
scorn"
[supervisor's]
of
630
Union
is
environment
special
Cir.
that
First
consumed
environment
Haqerstown,
at
VII.
unwanted
denigrated
directed
(7th
work
Title
environment
hostile
out
under
contains
City
(finding
"singled
529,
v.
("A
ridicule,
that
Mosby-Grant
2010)
242
create
environment
was
at
intimidate,
that
used
actionable
Clark
no
own
Lt.
stupid,
male
supporting
of
and
alleges
superiors
evidence
to
statements,
evidence
that
Clark
has
little
of
submitted.
support
sex.
for
Officer
Pam
when
abuse.
when
I
197-98.
nothing
was
motivated
142
&
on
n.9
how
her
of
Officer
the
Finn
Phillips
evidence
October
30,
statements
Lt.
Lt.
other
difficulty
Lt.
2007,
to
male
Phillips
because
See
with
me
verbal
through
same
way
jail.
The
is
Gilliam,
to
a
her
F.3d
at
specifics
differently
statements
is
woman,
behavior
474
lacking
treat
conclusory
This
Finn
Phillips's
testimony
race
that
particularly
race
in
treatment
adverse
true
of
year.
hand,
controlling
toward men
Phillips
and
has
demonstrated
his
temper
women
received
a
his
and
female
subordinates.
a
temper
Notice
-15-
of
It
Letter
losing
and
that
and behaving
alike.
for
received
the
the
Lt.
Phillips's
a
felt
threatened
going
me
Officer
that
witness
treatment).
the
was
at
women.
plaintiff's
that
spoke
constant
she
that
toward
after
that
was
year.
plaintiff's
fact
manner
provides
she
felt
to
treated
suggests
on
professional
what
fact
subsided
has
abuse
how
She
she
working
a
that
used
adverse
WTRJA,
2008,
animus
how
due
had
for
statement
support
to
him
the
(explaining
to
motived
light
than
by
the
about
Phillips.
started
lasted
supervisor
failed
Lt.
understood
first
this
declaration
that
[sic]
regards
Phillips]
Other
in
alot
around
I
[Lt.
mistreatment
R.
in
was
...
because
contention
me
around
times
she
Finn's
states:
with
uncomfortable
several
Officer
Clark's
Finn
talked
But
has
of
Intent
320.
to
in
a
submitted
Warning
making
R.
Lt.
on
derogatory
On
July
Suspend
14,
from
Duty
On
Without
February
Intent
and
to
Pay
4,
not
demonstrating
adverse
F.3d
evidence,
a
case
in
was
are
other
than
existed
the
reasonable
the
evidence
inference
of
support
Having
has
her
argued
hostile
thoroughly
than
a
Accordingly,
that
work
reviewed
scintilla
WTRJA
is
of
Jail.
in
for
e.g.,
Clark's
evidence
environment
sexual
the
the
record,
evidence
sexual
to
in
summary
harassment
-16-
that
she
is
no
at
an
142.
raise
a
can
of
judgment
a
treated
woman.
insufficient
harassment
claim.
630
such
have
support
and
contains
not
Court
record
Moby-Grant,
to
is
315.
plaintiff's
F.3d
that
was
explicit
474
would
fact
a
fails
presented
the
with
case
Gilliam,
Jail's
R.
the
of
supervisor
sex.
with
this
Phillips
Letter
Phillips
presented
that
322-23.
the
Lt.
statements,
See
has
entitled
hostile work environment
328.
See,
own
Lt.
second
with
infer
sex.
record
in an abusive manner but
WTRJA
jury,
could
Clark
that
R.
R.
medical
phone
men.
a
Clark's
at
a
Jail's
contaminated
women,
the
supervisor.
hostility based on
which
because
Rather,
the
the
for exhibiting
to
environment
Clark
whom
male
received
with
workplace
334.
Moreover,
of
his
on
a
treatment
at
arguing
references
derogatory
more
both
at
Phillips
temper
disciplined
is
Lt.
for
his
superintendent,
This
yelling
2009,
Suspend
losing
never
for
to
claim.
identify
no
this
claim.
on
Clark's
B. Racial Discrimination Claim
In
about
its
Clark's
race-based
denied
motion,
Clark
cannot
complains was
individual
or
§
motion
VII
central
claims
with
favorably because
In
the
Douglas
v.
Aikens,
all
the
a
direct
basis
of
protected
460
480,
485
U.S.
evidence
race,
burden-shifting
411
employer
U.S.
(4th
she
Cir.
802
Jail
failed
at
26-27.
and
of
but
to
With
argues
which
she
against
any
terms,
551
42
297,
300
the
employment
discrimination
the
U.S.
715
where
plaintiff
711,
that
must
she
See
-17-
under
v.
Bd.
plaintiff
McDonnell
Miles
Under
a
Serv.
discriminated
proceed
(1973);
2005).
was
Postal
less
(1983).
claims,
F.3d
U.S.C.
discrimination,
of
treated
conditions,
race.
Ltd.,
trait.
framework.
792,
for
agrees.
of
theory
VII
case
it
discriminate
Grp.,
doubt
the
treatment
because
the
at
41
compensation,
Title
treatment
no
Green,
F.3d
of
disparate
presented
on
in
of
facie
shortcoming
the
"to
Calvert
Regardless
whether
v.
unlawful
v.
No.
this
expressed
because
The Court
employment"
Jones
ECF
that
his
prima
judgment
remedies
to
a
Court
employment
claim.
demonstrate
of
question
Governors
WTRJA
respect
2009).
is
her
summary
her
it
the
establish
during
in
makes
2000e-2(a)(1);
Cir.
Order,
racially motivated.
privileges
(4th
to
for
deficiencies
Title
and
discrimination
instant
that
Opinion
ability
WTRJA's
identify
the
prior
the
McDonnell
has
against
McDonnell
Douglas
Dell,
of
Corp.
Inc.,
429
Douglas,
the
plaintiff
has
the
discrimination.
F.3d
289,
must
294
burden
Merritt
(4th
provide
a
shifts
to
pretextual
plaintiff's
the
of
the
and
that
Inc.,
demonstrate
U.S.
the
of
plaintiff
fails
necessarily
question
To
of
(2)
she
a
elements:
suffered
the
reason
is
the
cause
treatment
was
(2000),
and
the
of
action,
the
Sanderson
the
for
burden
v.
victim
Plumbing
plaintiff
must
intentional
by
a
601
294.
A
elements
creating
a
she
duties
expectations
at
case
present
is
adverse
legitimate
(4)
defendant
the
plaintiff
was
601
proffered
the
disparate
the
facie
must
her
and
job
so,
of
F.3d
of
at
a
triable
prima
issue
facie
on
the
discrimination.
(1)
an
that
the
reason
does
Merritt,
of
prima
Clark
it
case
Inc.,
Reeves
153
short
performing
action;
"whether
establish
falls
establish
following
to
Line,
discrimination
every
facie
succeeds,
If
prove
evidence,
intentional
discrimination,
Id.
to
In
133,
the
Freight
she
discrimination
preponderance
case
is
prima
non-discriminatory
discrimination,"
530
who
If
prohibited
Id.
a
Dominion
2010).
plaintiff
question
intentional
Prods.,
Old
treatment.
treatment.
ultimate
establishing
legitimate
adverse
is
v.
Cir.
plaintiff's
back
of
a
the
member
level
time
of
situated
-18-
disparate-treatment
evidence
of
employment
at
similarly
a
of
demonstrating
a
protected
action;
that
the
met
(3)
the
class;
she
was
her
employer's
adverse
employment
employees
outside
the
protected
class
BFI Waste
Servs.,
LLC,
has
failed
Clark
received
more
375
F.3d 288
to
(4th Cir.
establish
a
v.
case
of
facie
any
First,
the
treatment—being disciplined when black
officers
were
not,
training
after
permitted
to
of
a
Title
actions
to
Clark
effect
on
Cir.
a
has
see
to
Page
failed
to
v.
that
no
to
detrimental
classify
v.
to
as
and
not
were
effect
227,
233
intend
conduct
conduct
the
of
that
upon
of
slights
the
which
the
action,
merely
(4th
(4th
Cir.
Title
she
VII) .
suffered
of
complains
Fourth
Circuit
actions.
Maryland
Department
of
For
Health
or
employment
Clark
employment
a
256
conditions
adverse
-19-
these
"interlocutory
effect
on
not
253,
proscriptions
that
of
detrimental
F.3d
F.2d
context
employment
178
immediate
the
any
being
computer
the
significant
645
did
not
in
For
adverse
Goldin,
demonstrate
the
claim.
female
tactics
denied
action
employment
v.
complains.
note,
and being
some
Bolger,
within
similar
Prince-Garrison
her
Congress
having
Moreover,
substantially
of
an
had
Boone
fall
of
she
defensive
physician's
treatment
they
which
attend
employment
level
conditions
significant
employment.
in
that
decisions
declined
the
to
request,
adverse
discomfort."
conditions"
Clark
to
(explaining
mediate
an
a
upon
disparate
show
1999);
1981)
had
VII
the
"trivial
breaks
to
rise
must
forced
presenting
take
access—amounts
being
of
White
2004).
prima
treatment
See
for
of
the
treatment.
discrimination
none
of
favorable
her
is
has
example,
and
Mental
Hygiene,
371
Circuit
F.
held
App'x.
that
with
office
with
an
supervisors,
Richland
2002),
the
employer
failed
to
classroom
key
employment
of
she
conditions
she
her
a
a
because
her
she
has
not
she
was
presenting a
She claims
complete
forced
to
same
note
Riddick
to
postpone
or
importantly,
v.
616
(4th
judgment
did
not
not
her
shown
for
an
classroom,
access
amount
to
a
to
adverse
the
that
trivial
Cri.
conduct
impact
on
failed to demonstrate
of which
the
that
situated
her
Riddick was
Clark,
that
-20-
after
activity.
granted an extension
Jail
presentation
has
complains
training
physical
however,
the
non-white
Clark
tactics
restricting
upon
Clark complains
treatment.
defensive
Clark
not
615,
denied
similarly
claim
training
do
undesirable
a
meetings
action under Title VII.
favorable
training.
race
and
has
that
that Officer Miranda
the
an
than
she
attend
physician's
Riddick's
More
more
[plaintiff]
Richardson
In
summary
to
Fourth
counseling,
App'x
the actions
demonstrated
Officer
note.
of
more
F.
has
employment
several
received
employees
that
for
Clark
employment,
suffered an adverse
52
actions
had
provide
attend
computer,
Because
to
the
insubordination,
affirmed
these
2009),
actions."
plaintiff
new
complains
of
Second,
to
Circuit
actions.
which
to
District,
assigned
give
for
directions
School
Cir.
failure
employment
Fourth
that
(4th
reprimands
and
adverse
County
353
"employer's
supplies,
constitute
351,
provided
does
not
provide
allowed
Officer
of
no
a
physician's
evidence
to
substantiate
her
allegation
that
Officer
Riddick
received
an
extension.
Clark
also
disciplined
more
Specifically,
doors
She
in
written
up
alleges
blocks
that
respectively.
the
Id.
and
Poyner
has
presented
F4
Clark
no
documentation
for
November
21,
2008,
unsatisfactory
opening
Officer
of
cell
Nichols
of
reprimand
counseling.
R.
and
doors.
received
is
of
a
318.
doors
more
R.
Officer
safety
than
in
on
not
and
Fl,7
Nichols
and
she
statements,
the
from
other
Jail
hand,
officials
These
materials
show
2009,
Clark
counseled
relation
to
339-40.
of
cell
Accordingly,
own
199.
were
Officer
her
318,
severe
opening
R.
F4
violations,
letter
a
Poyner
when
was
officers.
for
blocks
WTRJA,
12,
in
up
she
authorization.
affidavits
April
which
female
cell
occurred.
in
written
indicate
other
performance
unauthorized opening
in
allegations.
and
block
and
alleged
even
Clark's
was
without
not
evidence,
has
on
Cl
does
that
to
she
conduct
demonstrating
corresponding
black
Nichols
these
they
instances
than
and
same
committed
provided
two
that
Officer
for
of
harshly
she
cell
claims
complains
block
form
the
the
On
was
that
unauthorized
May
reprimand
2008,
for
A
the
F4.
R.
of
punishment
than
discloses
that
record
337.
12,
letter
7 Clark maintains that cell block Fl has the same security status
as
Cl.
-21-
Officer
Nichols
did
not
receive
more
favorable
treatment
than
Clark.
WTRJA
Poyner.
the
has
no
Moreover,
Jail
on
throughout
Officer
June
her
record
15,
employment
Officer
doors,
failed
were
has
similarly
infractions.
that Officer
Poyner
Succinctly
disparate
"Such
Clark
has
employment
received more
prima
facie
or
that
she
time
to
for
are
Officer
their
present
block
Poyner
any
evidence
infraction.
to
prove
than
her
instances
own
142.
she
F.3d
at
suffered
situated
has
disparate
of
statements.
to
she
not
respective
474
that
race-based
and
has
cell
insufficient
Gilliam,
similarly
Fl
at
employee
Clark
the
of
more
treatment,
Because
that
attempts
alone,
non-probationary
opened
failed
nothing
claim."
favorable
case
has
Officer
probationary
Jail.
the
demonstrated
action
a
allegedly
Clark
with
VII
not
the
at
standing
Title
was
involving
a
committed the alleged
put,
assertions,
became
demonstrate
Clark
treatment
actionable
with
situated
Indeed,
incident
Clark
Poyner
to
an
Poyner
2009.
indicated when
she
of
sustain
an
Because
an
adverse
non-white
officers
failed
to
treatment
establish
under
a
Title
VII.
If
the
hostile
Court
work
environment
reason—namely,
create
a
interprets
genuine
she
Clark
claim,
has
not
dispute
over
it
as
would
provided
whether
-22-
alleging
fail
sufficient
her
adverse
a
race-based
for
the
same
evidence
to
treatment
was
because
of
race.
race-based
evidence
race;
To
hostile
that
survive
work
the
a
for
environment
harassment
and
(3)
conditions
of
employment
Spriqgs
Diamond
was
sufficiently
v.
motion
Auto
claim,
"(1)
severe
and
summary
are
must
an
devoid
(2)
pervasive
create
242
Clark
unwelcome;
or
Glass,
judgment
to
abusive
F.3d
179,
on
a
present
based
alter
on
the
atmosphere."
183-84
(4th
Cir.
2001).
Clark's
contention
As
that
previously
that
race
block
she
submissions
attend
the
alleged
explained,
motived
doors
Affairs
her
the
without
Clark
discipline
tactics
Burdine,
450
facie
case
prima
has
failed
or
248,
the
for
See
race.
inference
opening
cell
that
Tex.
(1981)
the
on
her
requirement
Jail's
254
raises
based
raise
to
the
supporting
was
received
training.
U.S.
facts
treatment
she
authorization
defensive
v.
adverse
of
Pep't
of
Comty.
(explaining
inference
of
that
unlawful
discrimination).
She
was
has
denied
race.
She
officers
black
black
also
computer
has
on
and
and
failed
four
C
six
leadership
on
leadership
on
Team
white
A
a
and
list
and
A
officers
white
C
provide
access
submitted
the
to
Team
team
sufficient
regular
showing
Team.
officers
consisted
breaks
the
on
C
worked
of
consisted
-23-
two
of
It
on
black
one
and
A
of
her
that
that
Team.
and
of
twelve
thirteen
Id.
officers,
black
she
composition
shows
Team
that
because
racial
131-34.
worked
evidence
The
and
one
the
white
officer.
Id.
Statistics
discrimination,
facts
Cir.
and
1
F.
however,
words,
they
By
Jail's
raise
current
access.
degree
as
to
WTRJA
Both
at
R.
316,
training
schedules
318.
may
than
and Trust,
has
the
be
chance;
977,
pursuant
more
the
probationary
employees
computer
access
F.3d at
-24-
may
before
this
142
have
n.9.
the
held
employment.
to
standard
computer
in
completed
their
break
Officer
Finn's
given
other
Clark,
failure
&
whom
have
Although
Jail
that
who
of
full
granted
flexibility
officers.
(1988)).
of
that,
other
(quoting
affidavits
Clark's
afforded
in
a
substantial
995
both
officers
Int'l
reveal
causation.'")
not
teams'
Tech.
they
during
are
(4th
("Statistics,
Jail
Similarly,
474
v.
explain
probationary
See Gilliam,
of
456
her
sufficiently
the
that
motivated.
out
submitted
employees
indicates
450,
linking
U.S.
suggests
declaration
surrounding
that
487
declaration
her
the
F.3d
superintendents,
affidavits
probationary
rule
be
employment
1998)
extent
must
of
Barnett
Va.
inference
former
positions
practice,
the
Bank
33
See
(E.D.
to
an
on
evidence
only
...
and
Ball,
no
579.
proof
depends
treatment.
disparities
Worth
v.
provided
572,
a
contrast,
315-319.
their
such
Fort
official
Carter
probative
of
provide
usefulness
her
2d
^statistical
Watson v.
R.
has
to
Supp.
are
disparity
that
Clark
composition
Inc.,
their
circumstances.
1994).
racial
but
can
was
nothing
in
racially
In
little
spite
more
treatment
she
treatment
was
an
discrimination
presented
the
as
a
In
to
showing
and
which
at
that
her
rather
of
than
the
as
a
race-based discrimination.
race.
Title VII
220,
228
(4th
employees
Hawkins
"The
critical
Otherwise,
not
in
the
civility
Inc.,
of
.
56
the
the
burden
at
addition
to
WTRJA
product
has
of
her
command-structured
O'Connor,
the
law
code,
56
Clark's
F.3d at
F.3d
at
WTRJA
evidence,
on
.
Ziske
is
it
disputes
F.3d
sufficient
.
of
nor
203
context
supervisors
of
Clark
is
claim
for
545.
CONCLUSION
2008),
legally
nature
her
race-based
in
the
a
318.
See O'Connor,
personality
PepsiCo,
for
a
Cir.
from
v.
need
is
R.
matter
her
bear
was
that
that
evidence,
in
and
establish
Moreover,
employee
IV.
to
Clark's
Jail,
reveals
will
322.
in
one-sided
judgment
she
the
the
to
to
behind
inference
record
treatment
her
an
essential
U.S.
477
at
sufficient
on
probationary
light
entitled
a'
deficiencies
evidence
organization
545.
claim
support
The
amount
motivations
employed
motivated.
element
Celotex,
identifying
status
make
submissions
the
while
adequately
racially
of
See
to
Clark's
about
experienced
to
existence
volume,
conjecture
fail
failed
trial.
their
than
accordingly,
has
of
[a
281
evidence
could
-25-
not
Mineta,
designed
with
274,
motion
v.
of
for
their
(4th
547
to
F.3d
protect
superiors,
Cir.
2000).
discrimination
summary
evaluate
is
judgment].
employees
of
a
different
Id.
at
race
282.
treatment
internal
"[t]he
[or
the
at
Court
Jail—a
security—that
evidence
226.
Clark
has
failed
was
based on
must
was
has
to
entitled to
summary
the
the
the
fail
a
hostile
gender"
satisfy
in
as
matter
experienced
to
conclude
Ziske,
that
law,
547
Because
her
element
of
with
abusive,
burden.
demonstrating
a
and
race.
this
lawsuit."
concerned
jury
or
a
Clark
primarily
reasonable
her
to
that
of
but
that
F.3d
Clark
treatment
of both her
and
WTRJA
is
judgment.
ECF No.
Opinion
Court
to
doubt
times
evidence
foregoing
Summary Judgment,
of
at
prospect
protected trait—an essential
claims
This
was
due
no
the
setting
allow
present
a
has
failed
claims—her
For
without
The
her mistreatment
at
gender]
and
reasons,
44,
is
Second
Motion
for
GRANTED.
Order
shall
matter,
this
WTRJA's
and
constitute
the
Clerk
the
is
final
judgment
DIRECTED to
close
case.
The
Clerk
is
further
DIRECTED
Opinion and Order to Clark and counsel
IT
IS
SO
to
a
copy
of
this
MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
for WTRJA.
ORDERED.
UNITED
Norfolk,
mail
Virginia
May °t , 2012
-26-
STATES
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?