Hill v. Foundation

LAURA HILL, Plaintiff, v. JAMESTOWN-YORKTOWN FOUNDATION, Defendant.

Civil No. 4:18cv137

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Newport News Division

May 26, 2021

OPINION AND ORDER

In this Title VII action, Plaintiff Laura Hill ("Plaintiff" or "Hill") alleges that her former employer, Defendant Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation ("Defendant" or "JYF"), an educational agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia, unlawfully discriminated against her on the bases of race and religion, retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity, and subjected her to a hostile work environment. Defendant now moves for summary judgment as to all claims. ECF No. 37. Plaintiff opposes Defendant's motion and has filed her own motion for summary judgment as to her religious discrimination claim. ECF No. 39.

After examining the briefs and the record, the Court determines that a hearing is unnecessary because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented, and oral argument would not aid in the decisional process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Va. Loc. R. 7(J). Defendant's request for a hearing, therefore, is DENIED. ECF No. 61. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, ECF No. 37, and Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED, ECF No. 39.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

JYF is an educational agency established by the Commonwealth of Virginia that is "tasked with fostering, through its living-history museums (the Jamestown Settlement and American Revolution Museum at Yorktown) an awareness and understanding of the early history, settlement and development of the United States through the convergence of American Indian, European and African cultures." Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ("DSUF") ¶ 1, ECF No. 38. JYF's facilities are open to the public 7 days a week and 363 days each year. Id. ¶ 2. Plaintiff, an African American woman and a Christian, worked part-time for JYF for a little more than eleven and a half years before her employment was terminated in October of 2018. Plaintiff claims that, throughout her employment with JYF, multiple JYF employees subjected her to racial and religious discrimination, harassment, and retaliation for engaging in protected activity, namely, filing charges of discrimination with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and various Virginia state agencies ("EEO" charges). Such alleged discriminatory conduct includes: (1) disparate treatment from hersupervisors, to include comparatively harsher disciplinary measures and a demotion; (2) failure to hire/promote Plaintiff for multiple positions for which less qualified individuals of a different race than Plaintiff were selected; and (3) failure to accommodate Plaintiff's scheduling requests that she not work on Sundays so that she could attend religious services. ECF No. 15. The Court outlines the most relevant facts below.

A. Plaintiff's Hiring

Plaintiff was first hired by JYF in March of 2007 as a part-time museum program assistant ("MPA"). DSUF ¶ 3; Pl.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ("PSUF") ¶ 1, ECF No. 40. In addition to greeting, orienting, and assisting JYF visitors, MPAs lead "interactive structured education tours."¹ DSUF ¶ 4. In October of 2011, JYF hired Plaintiff as a part-time historical interpreter, with Plaintiff also continuing to work part-time as an MPA. Id. ¶ 5; PSUF ¶ 2. Historical interpreters "dress up in period costumes, provide demonstrations and answer questions from the visitors." DSUF ¶ 5. Such employees receive more specializedtraining (and more pay per hour) than MPAs, and they must "clear" a testing process prior to "work[ing] in costume at a particular site." Id. As an historical interpreter, Plaintiff was assigned to the James Fort site located at the Jamestown Settlement. Id.

B. Supervisor Helmick

By April 2012, Plaintiff was reassigned to the Powhatan Indian Village ("PIV") interpretive site to serve as an historical interpreter.² Id. ¶ 6; ECF No. 50, at 9. In this position, Plaintiff reported directly to Volunteer Services Manager Jamie Helmick (formerly Lavin), a Native American woman. DSUF ¶ 7. According to Defendant, Ms. Helmick "observed or was made aware of various issues and problems with Hill's job performance," and "[o]n several occasions, Ms. Helmick discussed these issues and problems with Hill and then would provide her a written memorandum afterwards." Id. Ms. Helmick has provided a sworn declaration, which confirms the same and includes copies of examples of the memoranda, which, among other things, indicate that Plaintiff was counseled on the need to arrive on site when her shifts began andto return from breaks in a timely manner, to bring concerns regarding co-workers to her supervisor in a private setting, and to abide by costume requirements. ECF No. 38-4. One memorandum from August of 2014 noted that Plaintiff had "called in or arrived to work late on 19 separate days since March," and that such conduct constituted "unsatisfactory work performance and need[ed] to improve immediately." Id. at 10.

Approximately a year before the August 2014 memorandum, Plaintiff had expressed concerns to Interpretive Program Manager Robert (Homer) Lanier, Ms. Helmick's superior, that Ms. Helmick was subjecting Plaintiff to unfair or disparate treatment, suggesting that such treatment may have been racially motivated. DSUF ¶ 8. These concerns stemmed from a heat-related illness Plaintiff experienced while working outside on July 18, 2013, and Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the way in which Ms. Helmick responded to the incident. Id. In particular, Plaintiff testified in her deposition that Ms. Helmick waited approximately twenty minutes before agreeing to sign Plaintiff's time card before she could leave work, did not render first-aid to Plaintiff, and told Plaintiff to "go back outside and withstand the heat like your coworkers." ECF No. 50-1, at 139:9-146:18.

Mr. Lanier investigated Plaintiff's claims regarding the incident—as well as her claims that Interpretive Site Manager Cynthia (Cindy) Daniel and Assistant Site Manager Lara (Karen)Templin, to whom Plaintiff first reported the incident, did not adequately respond to Plaintiff's concerns—and provided Plaintiff with a detailed memorandum documenting his findings. DSUF ¶ 8; ECF No. 38-7, at 6-10. The August 20, 2013 memorandum, which Defendant submitted in connection with Mr. Lanier's declaration, stated that Mr. Lanier had met with Ms. Helmick, Ms. Daniel, and other staff witnesses, and that he was "unable to verify [Plaintiff's] account of this incident," and "at best" could determine only that "a breakdown in communication and confusion due to a variety of factors" were to blame. ECF No. 38-7, at 6-8. Mr. Lanier further determined that Ms. Daniel and Ms. Templin responded "appropriately, thoroughly and with reasoned judgment" to Plaintiff's claims. Id. at 8. Unsatisfied with the results of the investigation, Plaintiff filed an EEO charge in September 2013 and later received a right to sue letter, but she did not pursue litigation.³ ECF No. 50-1, at 163:17-165:6.

C. Supervisor Hardister

In January of 2015, Ms. Helmick transferred to another interpretive site, and Museum Interpretive Site Manager Frank Hardister became Plaintiff's new supervisor. DSUF ¶ 9. According to Defendant, Plaintiff continued exhibiting deficiencies in herjob performance, particularly with respect to appearing on time for her scheduled shifts. For example, on August 15, 2016, Plaintiff "failed to show up for her scheduled shift . . . without calling in beforehand." Id. ¶ 10. JYF refers to such an occurrence as a "no call/no show," and JYF policy provides for termination of an employee that incurs three of these infractions. Id. On August 16, 2017, Plaintiff received her second no call/no show. Id. Defendant has submitted copies of contemporaneous memoranda prepared by JYF representatives documenting both of these infractions. ECF No. 38-3, at 6, 8. Although Plaintiff claims she had legitimate excuses for not calling in/showing up for work on those two days, there is no dispute that Plaintiff did not report to work or call in prior to the start of her shift on either of those days. See ECF No. 50, at 9.

On February 21, 2018, Plaintiff failed to timely report for a scheduled shift, arriving approximately one hour late and thereby missing the first hour of a three-hour training class. DSUF ¶ 11; ECF No. 50, at 10. Plaintiff later emailed Mr. Hardister, explaining that she had misread her schedule. DSUF ¶ 11; ECF No. 50-1, at 186:19-187:11, 199:10-22. As a result, Plaintiff was issued a memorandum, dated March 15, 2018, stating, in part, "You have been counseled regarding attendance, tardiness, and other issues multiple times and each time you acknowledged the seriousness of these issues and agreed to correct [them]. To date,we have not seen an improvement as demonstrated by this most recent event." ECF No. 38-7, at 11-12; see also DSUF ¶ 11; ECF No. 50, at 10. To "impress upon [Plaintiff] the seriousness of this situation," Plaintiff was suspended without pay for five shifts and placed on a nine-month probationary period, during which "[a]ny instance [of] tardiness, leaving early without authorization, or unexcused absence" would "result in immediate termination."⁴ ECF No. 38-7, at 11. The memorandum separately cautioned that another no call/no show would also result in Plaintiff's termination. Id.

On April 26, 2018, a little more than a month after receiving the March 15, 2018 memorandum, Plaintiff received a performance evaluation for the period April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018. DSUF ¶ 12; ECF No. 50, at 10. The evaluation, completed by Mr. Hardister with the assistance of Human Resources Manager Barbra Hoffman, rated Plaintiff "Below Contributor," meaning that Plaintiff's performance "failed to meet the Foundation's performance expectations for the evaluation period."⁵ DSUF ¶ 12; ECF No. 38-3, at 2,...