Bell v. Shelby Cnty. Sch.

EBONY BELL, Plaintiff, v. SHELBY COUNTY SCHOOLS, Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-02311-JTF-dkv

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

July 5, 2017

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On May 9, 2016, the plaintiff, Ebony Bell ("Bell"), filed a pro se complaint against the defendants Shelby County Schools¹ and Chantay Branch ("Branch"), Director of Labor Relations for SCBOE, alleging discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) The case was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for management and for all pretrial matters for determination and/or report and recommendation as appropriate pursuant to Administrative Order 2013-05.

On May 11, 2016, the age discrimination claim against SCBOE was dismissed. (ECF No. 8.) Additionally, both claims against Branch were dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Id.) The only claim that remains is Bell's allegation against SCBOE for retaliation in violation of Title VII. (Id.)

Before the court is SCBOE's April 28, 2017 motion for summary judgment, seeking judgment as a matter of law on the remaining retaliation claim. (SCBOE's Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 27.) Bell failed to file a response to the motion before the deadline. For the reasons set forth below, the court recommends that SCBOE's motion for summary judgment be granted and that Bell's Title VII retaliation claim be dismissed.

I. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

Under Rule 56(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[a] party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion" in one of two ways:

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or

(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

Rule 56(e) provides:

If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may:

(1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact;

(2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion;

(3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials—including the facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is entitled to it; or

(4) issue any other appropriate order.

Further, pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(d), "[f]ailure to respond to a moving party's statement of material facts . . . within the time periods provided by these rules shall indicate that the asserted facts are not disputed for purposes of summary judgment." Bell has failed to file a response to SCBOE's motion for summary judgment. The court, therefore, adopts SCBOE's proposed factual findings to the extent they are properly supported by record evidence, including relevant portions of Bell's deposition and deposition exhibits. See also Nolgen v. FedEx TechConnect, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 694, 700 (W.D. Tenn. 2013)(holding that a pro se plaintiff's failure to respond to Local Rule 56.1 statement of material facts resulted in the admission of each statement of material fact); Iqbal v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 2d 909, 916 (W.D. Tenn. 2011)(holding that failure to respond to Rule 56.1statement of facts rendered those facts undisputed and warranted summary judgment in the defendant's favor).

The court therefore finds that the following facts are undisputed for the purposes of this motion for summary judgment:

Bell first started working for SCBOE's Security Services Division in June 2010 as a mobile security officer.² (SCBOE's Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 1, ECF No. 27-1.) Occasionally, Bell would do "after-school detail," which included securing sporting events, dances, or other after-school activities. (Id. ¶ 4.) Under SCBOE's reporting and management structure for the Security Services Division, Bell was supposed to report to her direct supervisor, Ray Hopkins ("Hopkins"), who reported to his supervisor, Glenn Williams ("Williams"). (Id. ¶ 6.) Williams reported to Carolyn Jackson ("Director Jackson"), the director of security, who reported to Chief Jones.³ (Id.) Despite this chain of command, Bell, for the most part, bypassed her direct supervisor Hopkins and instead reported to Williams. (Id. ¶ 7.)

On September 20, 2012, a Memphis police officer filed a complaint against Bell due to Bell's disrespectful behavior and lack of cooperation during a robbery investigation at Kate Bond Middle School. (Id. ¶ 14.) Hopkins later counseled Bellregarding this complaint. On May 14, 2013, Officer Steven Ray Cole ("Officer Cole") drafted a memorandum addressing Bell's excessive absences from March 15 to May 17, 2013. (Id. ¶ 15.) That same memorandum by Officer Cole also addressed the issue of Bell's habit of leaving security details early or showing up late. (Id. ¶ 16.) For example, during the 2013 basketball season, other Security Team Leaders complained that Bell was very late for security details or left events early. (Id.) Bell's excessive absences in 2013 became obvious to Hopkins, Williams, Director Jackson, and Officer Cole, and each person spoke with Bell regarding these concerns. (Id.)

In her 2014 annual employment evaluation, Bell's performance was rated "merely satisfactory" due to problems of leaving work assignments early and not being in her assigned locations. (Id. ¶ 17.) In August 2014, shortly after the performance review, Bell was relieved of her assignment at Ida B. Wells Academy after disrespectfully speaking to the principal, who merely asked Bell about her tardiness. (Id. ¶ 18.) Director Jackson informed Bell that her actions were unprofessional. (Id.)

Also in August 2014, Officer Cole sent an email to all SCBOE security officers regarding overtime, specifically that no personal vehicles can be driven and that officers must ride together. (Id. ¶ 19.) Contrary to that email, Bell twicedrove her personal car to overtime sites, with no other officer in the car. (Id.) Director Jackson was made aware of these violations, and she accordingly issued a written reprimand to Bell and referred Bell to Labor Relations. (Id. ¶ 20.) Bell then met with Labor Relations Advisor Ramone Lloyd ("Lloyd") to discuss the unprofessional August 2014 incident at Ida B. Wells Academy, as well as general performance concerns regarding Bell's work and disciplinary history. (Id. ¶¶ 21-23, 25.) Bell secretly recorded this meeting without Lloyd's consent. (Id. ¶ 24.) During this meeting, Bell inquired about filing a complaint due to hostile work environment and sexual harassment. (Id. ¶ 26.)

On or around September 16, 2014, after her meeting with Lloyd, Bell submitted a Department of Labor Relations Complaint Questionnaire, alleging sexual harassment and hostile work environment. (Id. ¶ 30.) In the complaint, Bell identified Williams and Hopkins as the "perpetrators of sexual harassment and/or discriminatory actions," which she alleged began in 2011 or 2012. (Id. ¶¶ 31, 33.) Bell identified no witnesses to her sexual harassment allegations and did not identify anyone who was treated differently than her under same or similar circumstances. (Id. ¶¶ 32, 35.) After filing this complaint, Bell attended three meetings to discuss her claims: the first meeting with Lloyd; the second meeting with Lloyd and Mr.Woods;⁴ and the last meeting with Mr. Woods, Lloyd, Branch, and Director Jackson. (Id. ¶¶ 36-37.)

The final incident before Bell's termination occurred on September 19, 2014. Bell was assigned to perform audits of Homeland Security equipment in schools alongside other officers. (Id. ¶ 38.) Bell knew that officers were supposed to ride "two-man" with their assigned partners to perform the audits, but Bell chose to not ride with her partner. (Id. ¶¶ 39-41.) Director Jackson was informed that Bell did not ride with her assigned partner, and then proceeded to meet with Bell. (Id. ¶ 43.) Director Jackson told Bell to write a statement and to take off her gun belt. (Id. ¶ 44.) Bell was then taken to Labor Relations, where she was told that SCBOE was going to terminate her employment due to poor job performance. (Id.)

Bell's employment was officially terminated on September 19, 2014. (Id. ¶ 45.) SCBOE explained to Bell that she was being terminated because her job performance was poor, as evidenced by her repeated violations of the Security Services Standard Operating Procedure ("SOP"), including Directive Rules ("DR"), as discussed infra.⁵ (Id. ¶ 45.) Bell contrastinglymaintains that she was terminated because of her complaint against Williams and Hopkins for sexual harassment and hostile work environment. (Id. ¶ 47.)

II. PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure of materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also LaPointe v. United Autoworkers Local 600, 8 F.3d 376, 378 (6th Cir. 1993); Osborn v. Ashland Cnty. Bd. of Alcohol, Drug Addiction & Mental Health Servs., 979 F.2d 1131, 1133 (6th Cir. 1992)(per curiam). The moving party has the burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact at issue in the case. LaPointe, 8 F.3d at 378. This may be accomplished by pointing out to the court that the non-moving party lacks evidence to support an essential element of its case. Celotex...