Harris v. Burnette et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 01/20/2017. Clerk mailed copy to pro se Plaintiff. (nbrow)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

JAN 2 3 2017
BRYANTIE ANN HARRIS,
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND, VA

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Case No. 3:16cv490

DR. ZENIA BURNETTE,
et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This

matter

is

before

the

Court

on

several

motions

to

dismiss filed by the Defendants: a MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 9)
(Woody Mot. )

filed by Defendants

Dr.

Sarah Huggins

Scarbrough

and Sheriff C.T. Woody, Jr., appearing in his official capacity,
and a MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY
OF RICHMOND AND DR. MICHELLE BOYD
filed on behalf of the
Richmond and Defendant

(ECF No.

13)

(Sch.

Bd. Mot.)

Defendant School Board of the City of
Dr.

Michelle Boyd.

For the reasons

set

out below, the Defendants' motions will be granted.
BACKGROUND

A.

Procedural Posture

The

Complaint

(ECF

No.

1)

names

Defendants

Boyd,

Zenia

Burnette, Richmond Justice Center Jail, Richmond Public Schools,
and Scarbrough as Defendants,

and was filed timely,

having been

filed within sixty days of the

right

to sue

letter issued to

Harris by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

("EEOC") .

(Compl. 2). At the direction of the Court, the City of Richmond
School

Board

official

"School

capacity,

Board"

were

and

Sheriff

substituted

as

C.T.
the

Woody,

in

properly

his

named

defendants in place of Richmond Justice Center Jail and Richmond
Public Schools

( ECF Nos.

12,

16) . A motion to dismiss

( ECF No.

9) was filed by Woody and Scarbrough. Boyd and the School Board
later filed their own motion to dismiss.
(ECF Nos

17,

18),

and Woody

Harris filed responses

submitted a

Harris filed a supplemental response

reply

(ECF No.

20).

(ECF No. 16). The substance

of the allegation is the same against each of these Defendants,
and the facts
favorable

to

at this stage must be viewed in the light most
the

Plaintiff;

the

Complaint

must

also

be

read

liberally in light of Harris's status as a pro se litigant. See
Estelle v. Gamble,

429 U.S.

97,

106 (1976);

see also Coleman v.

Maryland Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 189 (4th Cir. 2010).
B.

Factual Background.

Sometime in late August of 2015,
School Board as
("the

Jail")

inmates.
the

Jail

to

a

teacher

assigned to

provide

educational

Harris was hired by the
the

Richmond City Jail

services

to

eligible

Harris's employer remained the School Board; however,
is

operated by the Sheriff of the City of Richmond,

2

C.T.

Woody

("Woody").

While

assigned

to

teach

at

the

Jail,

Harris worked under the chain of command headed by Woody,
apparently,
the

Sheriff's

director."
hired,
Jail

she reported to Scarbrough,
Office

who

who was an employee of

served

as

the

"jail

during

became
an

concerned about

emergency

of stairs

(which

her

ability to

required

that

concern

to

Scarborough,

Harris

wrote

that,

the

down

six

operational),

and

In

Scarborough.
"[d] ue

exit

walking

if the elevators were not

communicated

to

an

health

3).

available,

The

full

because

content

Harris

of

the

attached

email

to

the

email

to

issues,

number of stairs that I can walk down is limited."
Attach.

program

(Sch. Bd. Memo. at 2). Sometime shortly after she was

Harris

flights

and

and,

the

(ECF No.

exchange
Complaint

is

1,
not

only

a

screenshot of her inbox, which shows only the first few words of
each correspondence. Id.
Scarbrough
requesting

a

responded

meeting

that

to

Harris's

day.

At

expressed

that

concerns

meeting,

by

Scarbrough

allegedly described Harris as a "liability" before requiring her
to surrender her security access badge and keys to the office.
(Compl. 3). Scarbrough also allegedly had deputies escort Harris
back

to

her

off ice

belongings and leave.

where

she

was

required

to

pack

up

her

Id. This action seems to have amounted to

the effective termination of Harris' s

3

service as a

teacher at

the Jail, but the logistics remain opaque; however,

it seems as

if Harris's employment with the City was also terminated.
As
briefs,
was

best

can

be

determined

from

the

Complaint

and

the

the particular educational program through which Harris

employed is

Sheriff's

in the nature of a

off ice

and

the

joint venture between the

School

Board.

The

program

organizationally falls under the umbrella of the School Board,
but it serves inmates and is thus functionally dependent on the
Sheriff's

Office

According

to

for

Woody's

access
motion

pursuant to Virginia law
incarcerated

individuals

provided

educational

"the

apparently

incarcerated

dismiss,

under

18)

had

and

(Woody Mot.

meeting

environment."

Scarbrough

to

the

this

students.

arrangement

is

(which mandates education for eligible

between the two entities.
Woody

to

Id.

the

the

written

agreement

4) . Under that agreement,

space
As

a

and

security

for

the

"jail program director,"

authority

to

deny

access

to

Harris, an employee chosen by the School Board to teach in that
program. However, there is no allegation that either Scarborough
or Woody had the authority to hire or fire Harris.
The Complaint provides that,
the

Jail

by

Scarbrough,

through

the

Justice

Center

that,

when

Richmond
were

after being

"[e]fforts

Public

School

unsuccessful."

Scarbrough

"revoked"

4

her

to

forced to

resolve

[sic]
(Compl.
access

and
3) .
to

this
The

matter
Richmond

Harris
the

leave

states

Jail,

her

employment

was

effectively terminated because

the access that Scarbrough had revoked.
current motions

to dismiss,

three months my employer,
get Dr.

Id.

her

job

required

In her reply to the

Harris provides

further

that,

"for

Richmond Public Schools attempted to

Scarbrough to meet with them to discuss how to get me

back into the building to continue my position as Jail Teacher"
and that

Scarbrough responded by asking

candidate to fill the position.
further

alleges

that

and her employer,
"physical
Public

sent."

when

out

provides

for
Id.

Harris's

actually terminated,
filled

for

the name of a

new

(Harris Reply 2). Harris' s reply
correspondence between

Scarbrough

Scarbrough indicated that there would be new

requirements

School

indicate

in this

for

the

any

new

Neither

Jail

the

employment

Teacher

Complaint

with

the

that
nor

School

Richmond
the

Reply

Board

was

but the "Intake Questionnaire" that Harris
EEOC,

11/10/2015

as

which
the

is

"Date

attached

to

the

Complaint,
(Compl.

Quit/Discharged."

Attach. 1-1).
Harris
to

Dr.

maintains

alleges

that

Scarbrough's
that

she

her

quasi-termination was

perception
is

that

"physically

perform the duties of that position".
tension with
EEOC,

how

Harris

filled

out

and
Id.
her

I

was

disabled,"

mentally

(Compl. Attach.

1-2).

5

qualified

and
to

This statement is in
questionnaire

in which she checked the box indicating that,

a disability."

solely "due

with

"Yes,

the

I have

In their Motion to Dismiss

(ECF

No.

9),

Woody

and

terminated because " [she]

Scarbrough

confirm

that

Harris

was

presented a safety and security risk

for the jail," while Harris continues seemingly to assert that
she has no disability.

(Harris Reply 1,

ECF No.

21).

However,

Harris told Scarborough and the EEOC that she was disabled. The
advice

to

the

Complaint.
dismiss,

EEOC

is

Therefore,

and in

incorporated

in,

and

attached to,

for purposes of deciding the motions

any future

amended Complaint,

Harris must

the
to
be

treated as alleging a disability.
Based on these
Scarbrough,

Woody

facts,

(Scarbrough's

(Harris' s employer).
their

roles

Michelle
"Intake
immediate

Boyd

in

Harris filed a timely suit against

complaint,

Zenia

Questionnaire"
supervisors.

Harris

Burnette
with

the

(Compl.

in

(ECF No.

her

Attach.

5),

must be dismissed on that ground.

also

EEOC

longer employed by the School Board,
served with process

and

School

Board

(Compl. 1). Although she has not specified

her

and

employer),

named

Defendants

Complaint,

listed
1-1).

them
Burnette

and

her

as

her

is

no

has not been successfully

and the Complaint against her
The Complaint also makes no

discernable claim against Boyd.
ANALYSIS AND LEGAL STANDARDS

A.

The Claims Against Scarbrough, Boyd, and Burnette

Under any view of the facts,
Boyd,

the suits against Scarbrough,

and Burnette must be dismissed.

6

Beyond the fact that the

Complaint makes no discernible claims against Boyd or Burnette
(and that the latter was never served) ,

indi victual supervisors

are not liable under the ADA for the delegable decisions they
make on behalf of their employers.
Corp.,
Co.,
§

30 F.3d 507,

907 F.

510

(4th Cir.

Supp.

169,

Such

delegable

12111 (2).

discriminatory

172

conduct

contained

include

in

the

allegedly

Complaint,

the

See Stephens,

is

Kay Mgmt.

1995); see also 42 U.S.C.

decisions

("After Birkbeck, there

Marvel Lighting

1994); Stephens v.

(E.D. Va.

decisions to terminate employees.
173-74

Birkbeck v.

no personal

907 F.

i.e.

Supp. at

liability

under

either the ADEA or Title VII for individuals making a decision
to

terminate

liability

on

employment.") .
individual

Because

supervisors

the

ADA

under

does
the

not

impose

circumstances

alleged in this case, further amending of the Complaint would be
futile.

The

Complaint

will

therefore

be

dismissed

with

prejudice against Scarborough, Boyd, and Burnette.
B.

The Claims Against the School Board and Woody

The Complaint must also be dismissed as to the School Board
and Woody.
only

for

"employer"

As relevant to this case,
the

discriminatory

the ADA imposes liability

employment

§§

But,

as

liberally,

made

by

an

(as provided in the def ini ti on of "covered entity")

against an "employee." See 42 U.S.C.
even

decisions

accepting
Harris' s

the
actual

Complaint

employer was

7

12112(a), 12111(4)-(5).
true
the

and
School

reading
Board,

it
not

Woody.
by

Moreover,

Scarbrough,

Harris.
each

Put

an

discriminatory action allegedly taken was

employee

together,

entity.

Board has

the

Because

of

Woody

Harris's
Harris

but

claims

has

not

not

the

therefore
alleged

employer
fail

that

against

the

taken any discriminatory action against her,

of

School
she has

not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted against the
School Board.
Office

And,

because

not

Harris' s

the

under

is

ADA

against

(as presently alleged)

employer,
Woody

she

either.

has

not

Thus,

the Sheriff's

stated

the

a

claim

Complaint

must

also be dismissed against the School Board and Woody.
The

dismissal

against

Woody and the

School

Board will

be

without prejudice and with leave to amend on the basis of the
"joint employer" doctrine if,
support such a theory.
Inc.,
does

793 F.3d 404,
not

currently

School Board,
present

facts

and only if,

See Butler v.

409

(4th Cir.

state

a

there are facts that

Drive Auto.

Indus.

of Am.,

2015). Although the Complaint

claim against

either Woody

or

the

it is conceivable that an amended complaint could
indicating

that

the

Sheriff's

Office

and

the

School Board should be treated as "joint employers" as provided
by

that

doctrine.

Therefore,

the

dismissal

of

the

Complaint

will be without prejudice as to Defendants Woody and the School
Board.

8

CONCLUSION

For the
(ECF

Nos.

9,

reasons
13)

set

will

forth
be

above,

granted,

the motions
and

the

to

action

dismiss
will

be

dismissed with prejudice as the individual Defendants Michelle
Boyd,

Sarah Huggins,

and Zenia Burnette. The motions to dismiss

will also be granted as to Woody and the School Board, but the
matter will be dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend
on the basis of the

joint employer doctrine if,

and only if,

there are facts that support such a theory.

It is so ORDERED.

Isl
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge

Richmond, Virginia
Date: January 1-1>, 2017

9