White v. Golden Corral of Hampton LLC

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 25 Amended Motion for Summary Judgment. The Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Plaintiff has not opposed summary judgment of the retaliation claim or demonstrated any genuine issue of material fact in dispute; thus, as a matter of law, Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment on the retaliation claim is GRANTED. The defendant has not demonstrated that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding Plaintiffs disability claim and accordingly, the Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment on this disability claim is DENIED. Copies distributed as directed to counsel of record. (See footnote for specifics) Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 3/13/2014 and filed on 3/14/14. (bgra, )

FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

MAR 1 4 2014

Newport News Division

CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT
NORFOLK, VA

GLORILENE WHITE,

Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13ev27

V.

GOLDEN CORRAL OF HAMPTON, LLC,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Golden Corral of Hampton. LLCs ("Defendant" or

"Golden Corral") Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 25, pursuant to Rule 56 of

the federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 Having carefully considered the parties' pleadings, this
matter is now ripe for disposition. Lor the reasons set forth herein. Defendant's Amended
Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Glorilene White ("Plaintiff"), a former Assistant Manager of the Bakery for
Golden Corral of Hampton, brought this claim against Defendant, her former employer, alleging

she was terminated as a result of her visual disability and in retaliation for exercising her
protected rights. Compl. 1, ECF No. 1. Defendant denies Plaintiffs claims and maintains that
Plaintiff was terminated for performance issues, including excessive tardiness. Answer ^[ 2-5,
ECF No. 4.

1Defendant previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 11, on December 19,2013. Pursuant to its
January 15. 2014 Order, the Court granted Defendant leave to file an amended summary judgment motion.
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is moot. The Court will only consider the Amended
Motion for Summary. ECF No. 25, filed on February 14, 2014.
1

In 2006, at the time of her hire, Plaintiff informed Golden Corral managers that she had a

visual disability which prevents her from driving. PL's Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. 1, ECF
No. 27. Plaintiff alleges that her Golden Corral manager allowed her to arrive late to work since

she depended on taxis for transportation. Def.'s Am. Mot. Summ. J. Mem. ^ 14, ECF No. 26.
Plaintiff also alleges that her manager agreed to print her monthly work schedule because her
visual disability rendered her unable to view images on a computer screen. PL's Opp'n 1.

Plaintiff considers both the late arrival time and the printed schedules to be accommodations to

her position that enabled her perform her job with her visual disability.
In January 2010, Plaintiff spoke with her manager James Rex Hoover about a fellow

employee's accusation that certain Golden Corral staff members were illegal aliens. Def.'s Am.
Mot. at Tj 2-3. Plaintiff asserts that after this conversation with Hoover, Golden Corral
management rescinded her accommodations. PL's Opp'n 1-2. Defendant counters that around
that time, Golden Corral management developed concerns about Plaintiffs performance because

her late arrivals became frequent and excessive. Def.'s Am. Mot. 3. On February 20,2010,
Plaintiff met with Hoover to discuss disciplinary actions as a result of her excessive tardiness.
Id. TI 13. The disciplinary document, described as a "final warning," advised Plaintiff that
continuing to arrive late to work "may result in severe disciplinary action from demotion of

position up to and including termination." Id. Because Plaintiff continued to arrive late to work,
she was terminated on May 1,2010. Id. at 20.
After receiving a Notice of Right to Sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission on November 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed her Complaint pro se against Defendant on

February 25, 2013. On November 26, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions, alleging that

Plaintiff did not respond to discovery requests or appear for her deposition. On January 15, 2014,
this Court accepted the findings of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which found
2

sanctions appropriate because Plaintiff failed to comply with discovery. The Court ordered Plaintiff,
who had recently obtained counsel, to respond to interrogatories, grant a discovery deposition and

pay certain fees to Defendant. This Court also granted Defendant leave to file an amended summary
judgment motion. Defendant filed the instant Amended Motion for Summary Judgment on February
14,2014.
II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[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); see also McKinney v.

lid. ofTrustees ofMd. Cmty. Coll., 955 F.2d 924, 928 (4th Cir. 1992) ("[Sjummary judgments
should be granted in those cases where it is perfectly clear that no issue of fact is involved and

inquiry into the fact is not necessary to clarify the application of the law.") (citations omitted).
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the facts, and inferences to be
drawn from the facts, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby Inc., All U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475
U.S. 574,587(1986).

Once a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported, the opposing

party "must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."
Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586-87 (internal quotations omitted). Summary judgment will be
granted "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an
essential element to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at

trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, All U.S. 317, 324 (1986). "Genuineness means that the

evidence must create fair doubt; wholly speculative assertions will not suffice." Ross v.
Commc 'nsSatellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 364 (4th Cir. 1985), abrogated on othergrounds by,
3

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989); see also Ash v. United Parcel Sen>., Inc.,
800 F.2d 409,411-12 (4th Cir. 1986) (noting that the nonmoving party must offer more than

unsupported speculation to withstand a motion for summary judgment).
III. DISCUSSION

A.

Retaliation Claim

The relevant portion of Title VII prohibits discrimination against any employee who "has

opposed any ... unlawful employment practice." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). The Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") provides, "[n]o person shall discriminate against any individual
because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter..." 42

U.S.C. § 12203(a)-(b). Retaliation claims pursuant to the ADA are evaluated under the

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973), "pretext" framework. See Label
s'. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 432 (4th Cir. 2006). Under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting
scheme, the plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of retaliation.

McDonnell Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. at 802. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the

plaintiff"must prove that (1) she engaged in a protected activity, (2) the employer acted

adversely against her, and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and
the asserted adverse action." Hoyle v. Freightliner, LLC, 650 F.3d 321, 337 (4th Cir. 2011). If

the plaintiffis successful in establishing a prima facie case for retaliation, the burden shifts to the
defendant to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse action. Laber, 438
F.3d at 432. If the defendant provides evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its
adverse action, the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the proffered

reason was a pretext for retaliation. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133,
146-48 (2000). The plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of persuasion. Id.

Defendant claims that Plaintiff has not established that she engaged in a protected activity or

that a causal connection between such a protected activity and her termination exists. Instead,
Defendant maintains that Plaintiff was terminated for excessive tardiness, a legitimate

nondiscriminatory reason for termination that bore no relation to a protected activity.
Plaintiff raises no opposition or response to Defendant's request for summary judgment
on her retaliation claim. Defendant's argument that Plaintiff fails to state a viable retaliation
claim has been uncontroverted and Plaintiff has not established that there is any genuine issue of

material fact in dispute. In opposing the summary judgment motion, Plaintiff did not present
evidence that her report of alleged discrimination or unlawful conduct was a protected activity
that caused Defendant's adverse employment action against her. Plaintiff also failed to present
evidence that excessive tardiness was a pretextual explanation for her termination. Therefore,
Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment as to the retaliation claim is GRANTED.
B.

Disability Discrimination Claim

In supporting a motion for summary judgment, the moving party has the burden of

showing that there is no genuine dispute as to a material fact. Defendant emphasizes Plaintiffs

noncompliance with Local Rule 56(B), which requires a specific listing of facts in dispute in
response to an opposing party's statement of material undisputed facts. See EDVA Local Rules,
Local Civil Rules, pg. 25 (Nov. 19, 2010). Local Rule 56(B) states that briefs in opposition to

summary judgment must contain a specifically captioned section listing all material facts
contended to be in dispute, with citations to the parts of the record which support the existence of
the dispute. Id. Local Rule 56(B) also states that failure to properly controvert a fact in an

opposing brief may result in the fact being deemed admitted by the Court. Id. Defendant insists

that Plaintiff elected to ignore Local Rule 56(B) and her obligation to provide a listing of

undisputed material facts in support of her Opposition to the Amended Motion for Summary
Judgment.

The Court recognizes that Plaintiff failed to strictly comply with Local Rule 56(B).

However, this failure to comply does not preclude a finding that summary judgment is

inappropriate. The Court finds that Plaintiff has identified several disputed issues of material
fact throughout her Opposition to the Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, albeit not in a
captioned section and listing. Plaintiff indicates that the parties dispute whether it has always
been Golden Corral's policy to require her to arrive on time for her scheduled shift. See Def.'s
Am. Mot. 6; PL's Opp'n 5. Plaintiff also disputes Defendant's estimation of the number of
instances when she was tardy. PL's Opp'n 1-2, 5. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that her lateness

was caused by Golden Corral managers' discontinued printing of her schedule and modification
of shift times without informing her. Moreover, Plaintiff references portions of the record to
support her factual claims, including the Declaration of James Rex Hoover (ECF No. 12-4), the
Declaration of Linda Branch (ECF No. 12-1), Plaintiffs Response to Golden Corral's Position
Statement (ECF No. 18-1), and Defendant's documentation of her late arrivals (ECF No. 10-6).

Although Local Rule 56(B) requires compliance with its instruction regarding the proper
filing of a response to a summary judgment motion, the Court will not elevate form over
substance. Because Plaintiff identified genuine issues of material facts that remain in dispute,
Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment as to the disability discrimination claim is
DENIED.
IV. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment is

GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Plaintiff has not opposed summary judgment

of the retaliation claim or demonstrated any genuine issue of material fact in dispute; thus, as a
matter of law, Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment on the retaliation claim is
GRANTED. Defendant has not demonstrated that there is no genuine issue of material fact

regarding Plaintiffs disability claim and accordingly, Defendant's Amended Motion for
Summary Judgment on this disability claim is DENIED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Norfolk, Virginia

Raymond**;. Jackson

March Q

United atates District Judge

,2014