Bush-Butler v. Mayor & Alderman of Savannah, CASE NO. CV415-212

LAVON BUSH-BUTLER, Plaintiff, v. MAYOR AND ALDERMAN OF THE CITY OF SAVANNAH, Defendant.

CASE NO. CV415-212

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

September 29, 2016

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 15.) For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is GRANTED. As a result, Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from a curious set of facts. Specifically, Plaintiff—an African-American woman—was terminated from her position as Chief of Staff with the Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police Department ("SCMPD") because of a grant application. (Doc. 24, Attach. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated because of race and gender discrimination (Doc. 1), while Defendant alleges that she was insubordinate, untruthful, and failed to follow the chain of command (Doc. 27 at 2-3).

SCMPD Chief Willie Lovett hired Plaintiff but retired in September 2013. (Doc. 24, Attach. 1 at 1.) After Chief Lovett's retirement, the SCMPD made a number of hiring and organizational changes. First, Juliette Tolbert—an African-American woman—was appointed Chief on an interim basis, serving from October 2013 until November 2014. (Id. at 2.) Second, City Manager Stephanie Cutter appointed Terry Enoch as Assistant Chief on an interim basis. (Id.) Third, Plaintiff's job role was modified. While Plaintiff had largely worked for Chief Lovett, Chief Tolbert transitioned Plaintiff to working for Assistant Chief Enoch and Majors Zapal, Branson, Fagerstrom, and Barnwell. (Id. at 3.) Moreover, Chief Tolbert determined that Plaintiff should no longer participate in command staff training and meetings. (Id.) Finally, Chief Tolbert removed Plaintiff—along with numerous other civilian SCMPD employees—from certain email lists. (Id. at 4.) Although Plaintiff complained to City Manager Cutter about these changes, there is no indication that Plaintiff pursued these complaints. (Id. at 5.)

Chief Tolbert also made changes to the privileges that certain civilian SCMPD employees—including Plaintiff—enjoyed. Specifically, Chief Tolbert terminated their ability to take a city vehicle home at night. (Id. at 6.) These employees complained about the loss of their city vehicle privileges with varying results. At least one white female requested to keep hervehicle but was denied. (Id.) At least one white male—the SCMPD Director of Training—was allowed to keep his take-home vehicle because he had to work evenings and weekends, and traveled for his job. (Id.) There is no evidence that Plaintiff petitioned to keep her car.

Although Plaintiff was displeased with the loss of her car privileges and changes in job expectations, the real trouble started when Plaintiff began to work on a grant application. In 2014, City Manager Cutter determined that the SCMPD should apply for the Byrne Justice Innovation Project Grant. (Id. at 7.) City Manager Cutter reached out to Budget Director Melissa Carter, Chief Tolbert, and Assistant Chief Enoch and encouraged SCMPD to apply for the grant. (Id.) SCMPD assigned Plaintiff, Karen Williams, and Gardenia Campbell to the grant application team. (Id.)

The process of applying for the grant application was fraught with confusion and conflict. City Manager Cutter regularly corresponded with Budget Director Carter and Chief Tolbert regarding the status of the grant application. (Id. at 8.) During these communications, City Budget Director Carter indicated to City Manager Cutter that it was difficult to get information from SCMPD. (Id. at 8.) To alleviate these concerns, Chief Tolbert requested that Plaintiff contact Budget Director Carter. (Id. 1 at 9.) Rather than contacting Budget DirectorCarter as requested, Plaintiff provided the relevant information to Chief Tolbert. (Id. at 9.)

The confusion did not end there. Sometime after asking Plaintiff to speak with Budget Direct Carter, Chief Tolbert indicated to Plaintiff that Plaintiff should stop working on the grant application. (Id. at 10.) However, Assistant Chief Enoch spoke with City Budget Director Carter and told that team to continue working on the project. (Id.) Plaintiff apparently continued to work on the grant application.

On May 6, 2014—the day the grant application was due-Plaintiff reported in sick. (Id.) However, Plaintiff continued working on the application from home. (Id.) Slightly before 8:00 p.m., Budget Director Carter sent an email to Plaintiff, City Manager Cutter, Chief Tolbert, and others stating that the grant application had been finalized. (Id. at 11.) At 8:01 p.m., Plaintiff responded to City Manager Cutter, Budget Director Carter, Chief Tolbert, Chief Enoch and others, warning those individuals that the application had actually not been completed. (Id.) Although Budget Director Carter inquired about this confusion, Plaintiff did not respond because Director Carter was not in her chain of command. (Id. at 11-12.) Plaintiff later contacted City Manager Cutter indicating that Plaintiff had finalized the program narrative and abstract. (Id. at 14.) Chief Tolbert also contacted Plaintiff to inquire aboutthe status of the grant. (Id. at 12.) During the phone call, Plaintiff told Chief Tolbert that Plaintiff was not working on the grant. (Id.) Apparently, this statement was incorrect.

Miraculously, the grant application was submitted despite all of this confusion. After the phone call with Chief Tolbert, Plaintiff emailed City Manager Cutter indicating that the project had been completed. (Id. at 14.) Plaintiff also eventually told Chief Tolbert that the grant had been submitted. (Id.)

Chief Tolbert was displeased with Plaintiff's behavior during the grant applications process. Specifically, Chief Tolbert wanted to know why Plaintiff had said she was not working on the grant when she, in fact, had been. After the application was submitted, Chief Tolbert sent an email to Plaintiff requesting further information on what had happened on May 6, 2014. (Id. at 15.) Plaintiff never responded to this email. (Id.) On May 9, 2014, Chief Tolbert sent a follow up email requesting further information as to Plaintiff's misleading comments. (Id.) Plaintiff responded to this inquiry in person. (Id.) After brief consideration, Chief Tolbert determined that Plaintiff was insubordinate, untruthful, and had violated the chain of command. (Id. at 16.) Accordingly, Chief Tolbert asked Lt. Robert Gavin to conduct an internal affairs investigation into Plaintiff. (Id. at 17.) SCMPD policy wouldhave usually required Chief Tolbert to conduct the investigation. (Id.)

On November 3, 2014, Plaintiff received a copy of Lt. Gavin's Office of Professional Standards report. (Id. at 18.) At this time, Chief Tolbert's term with the SCMPD was also coming to a close and Joseph Lumpkin became the permanent Chief of Police on November 10, 2014. (Id.) Accordingly, Chief Lumpkin was ultimately responsible for determining Plaintiff's penalty. Chief Tolbert recommended that Plaintiff be terminated and Chief Lumpkin agreed. (Id.) On November 19, 2014, Plaintiff received a notice of suspension prior to dismissal. (Id.) Plaintiff exercised her right to appeal and requested that Chief Lumpkin and the police bureau chief review the investigation and termination. (Id.) While Plaintiff did not dispute her actions, she alleged that she should have received progressive discipline rather than termination. (Id. at 23.) On November 20, 2014, Chief Lumpkin conducted a hearing on Plaintiff's appeal. (Id. at 19.) Chief Lumpkin upheld Plaintiff's termination after Plaintiff "admitted violation[s] of each charged administrative violation." (Id. at 20.) Plaintiff does not dispute that Chief Lumpkin did not discriminate against her on the basis of race or gender, or retaliate against her because she engaged in a protected activity. (Id.) Plaintiff appealed to City ManagerCutter, who held a hearing and also upheld the dismissal. (Id. at 21.)

Although not included in her statement of facts, Plaintiff also alleges that she was terminated because of her involvement in a race-based harassment complaint. (Doc. 24 at 13.) Roughly a month before Plaintiff's termination, Plaintiff helped Azeezah Sharif file a complaint about racial and threatening statements made by a white male co-worker. (Id.) Plaintiff helped Ms. Sharif send an email, and spoke with Chief Enoch and Major Branson regarding the complaint. (Id. at 14.)

Plaintiff filed this case against the Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah on July 29, 2015. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that she suffered unequal treatment in the terras and conditions of her employment in violation of the 14th Amendment, retaliation in violation of Title VII, racial discrimination in violation of Title VII, gender discrimination in violation of Title VII, differences in terms and conditions of employment based on race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and that the SCMPD was negligent in its hiring and training. (Id. at 7-9.) Defendant alleges that Plaintiff was terminated because she was was insubordinate, untruthful, and failed to follow the chain of command (Doc. 27 at 2-3).

ANALYSIS

I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

According to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), "[a] party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense—or the part of each claim or defense—on which summary judgment is sought." Such a motion must be granted "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." Id. The "purpose of summary judgment is to 'pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.' " Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory committee notes).

Summary judgment is appropriate when the nonmovant "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the...