Phillips v. City of Parks

LATANGELA PHILLIPS, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF CONCORD PARKS AND RECREATION DEPT., Defendant.

1:10CV947

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

July 12, 2011

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Remand (Docket Entry 7) filed by pro se Plaintiff Latangela Phillips ("Phillips"). For the reasons set forth herein, Phillips' Motion for Remand (Docket Entry 7) is denied.¹

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background²

In her Complaint, Phillips alleges that she was an employee of Defendant City of Concord Parks and Recreation Department. (Docket Entry 1, Ex. A at 2.) She complains that a "customer" had "displayed abusive behavior, violent behavior, racial harassment and racist comments" (the "Incident") and that she reported said Incident to her supervisors on January 4, 2009. (Id.) Phillips asserts that, in early January of 2009, she also contacted theRecreation Coordinator and the Deputy Director to discuss her report (id., Ex. A at 4), and, on January 16, 2009, she spoke with the City of Concord's Safety Manager who instructed her to complete a "Workplace Violence form" (id., Ex. A at 5).

In Phillips' view, her supervisor gave her a written reprimand "in retaliation of [sic] Safety Complaint reported earlier on same day." (Id.)³ Phillips pleads that, on January 22, 2009, she filed a grievance related to the Incident and the written reprimand (id., Ex. A at 6) and, on January 28, 2009, she filed a complaint with the City Manager alleging "retaliation by reduction in hours" (id., Ex. A at 15).⁴

Phillips recounts that, on February 6, 2009, she filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") charge against Defendant alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII") "due to retaliation by reducing hours, written reprimand, and refusal to meet with [Phillips] or follow City Policy and Parks and Recreation Discipline Policy, and advocating racial harassment." (Id., Ex. A at 6-7.) Phillips alleges that she also filed a complaint with the North Carolina Department of Labor. (Id., Ex. A at 13.)

In Phillips' view, while utilizing Defendant's grievance process, she "was not satisfied with findings" made by the Recreation Coordinator at Step II, and she proceeded to Step III. (Id., Ex. A at 6.) She states that, separate from the grievance process, on January 26, 2009, she met with a panel to discuss the Incident. (Id., Ex. A at 7.)⁵

According to Phillips, in a letter dated February 4, 2009, the Assistant City Manager wrote that Phillips' "complaints" "are similar to [her] grievances. Therefore, it would not be prudent or productive . . . to meet." (Id., Ex. A at 17.)⁶ According to Phillips, she proceeded to file another complaint four days later stating:

On February 8, 2009, [Phillips] filed Harassment and Retaliation complaint with the City Manager's office alleging Logan Recreation Center supervisor harassed and retaliated against Plaintiff for filing Safety grievance by impeding and blocking movement on February 6, 2009 and aggressively expressing personal feelings about grievances filed which included Logan Recreation Center supervisor's name. [Phillips] also informed administration of incident. Deputy Director emailed [Phillips] a response to complaint. Deputy Director did not follow policy.

(Id., Ex. A at 17.) Phillips contends that, two days after filing her February 8th complaint, she responded to the Assistant CityManager by e-mail asking, "how assessment was made without [her] impute [sic] which is city policy." (Id., Ex. A at 18.)

Phillips alleges that, on March 10, 2009, she exchanged emails with Defendant's Human Resources Director regarding the grievance process and a possible meeting, but, the next day, the Assistant City Manager sent another e-mail to her explaining that "meetings should not be scheduled to address grievances" due to the filing of the EEOC charge. (Id., Ex. A at 7-8.) Phillips claims that she went to the City Manager's office on March 30, 2009, where she "discuss[ed] concerns and how concerns were being handled and policy was not being followed." (Id., Ex. A at 8.)

The Complaint asserts that, on April 2, 2009, the Department Director provided Phillips with "findings" that she had not satisfied the "threshold to support [her] claim that [sic] customer was creating unsafe work environment . . . ." (Id., Ex. A at 8.) Phillips, nevertheless, claims that the customer involved in the Incident was "confined" to one of the recreation centers, and she was "confined" to a different recreation center. (Id.) According to Phillips, on April 8, 2009, the customer was permitted to use the recreation center where Phillips was working; therefore, Phillips contacted her superiors and was instructed to leave. (Id., Ex. A at 9.) Phillips claims that, in April and May of 2009, she had discussions with her superiors and the Grievance Committee about the customer and her safety, while during that same period she simultaneously discussed settlement with Defendant's CityAttorney, the North Carolina Department of Labor, and the EEOC. (Id., Ex. A at 9-10, 13-14.)

Phillips alleges that, on May 6, 2009, she met with the Grievance Committee, as part of Step III of the grievance process, but, at that time, "[n]o written reprimand could be located in [her] Personnel file" and "no evidence of retaliation could be substantiated." (Id., Ex. A at 6 & 15.) She claims that the reprimand "had been changed to Progress Notes" and the Grievance Committee "recommended that the Progress Notes should not be part of [her] Personnel file." (Id., Ex. A at 15-16.) In Phillips' view, her January 28th retaliation complaint, related to a reduction in working hours, was "not addressed" until later when she received a certified letter from the City Manager. (Id., Ex. A at 16.)⁷

Phillips contends that, on May 12, 2009, the panel issued its "findings" which included a recommendation that Phillips' contact with "potential problem customers" be limited. (Id., Ex. A at 9-11.) The Complaint states that, on May 21, 2009, Phillips had a meeting with Defendant's employees, including the City Manager, in accordance with Step IV of the grievance process where she sought to address various issues including "a safe environment free from racial harassment, harassment by co-workers, abusive behavior, intimidating and hostile work environment and violent behavior[,]"but the City Manager ignored her concerns. (Id., Ex. A at 11.) Phillips claims that, on June 1, 2009, she contacted the City Manager to discuss the customer who was connected with the Incident and, on June 8, 2009, Phillips received the City Manager's "final determination." (Id., Ex. A at 11-12.)⁸

According to the Complaint, on March 11, 2010, Phillips met with an EEOC investigator, at which time she realized that a "Progress Note form previously used in grievance hearing as part of written reprimand" was not incorporated in her file. (Id., Ex. A at 19.) Phillips pleads that she sent an e-mail to Defendant's Human Resources department to "ask about the Progress Notes being allowed to be forwarded" and, on March 15, 2010, she received a letter informing her that the "Progress Notes were submitted." (Id.) She maintains that, on March 18, 2010, she filed a grievance against "administration for forwarding documents to EEOC that were not part of [her] Personnel file" and "[she] received [a] letterfrom Human Resources Director denying right to move forward with grievance process." (Id., Ex. A at 19-20.)

Phillips asserts that, on June 23 and 28, 2010, she "complained about [a supervisor's] unprofessional and abusive behavior" and, on July 14, 2010, she was "suspended for five days without pay" in response to her June 23rd complaint. (Id., Ex. A at 20.) According to Phillips, on July 16, 2010, she filed a grievance related to the suspension and, on July 22, 2010, she met with the Department Director and Deputy Director, as part of Step II of the grievance process, regarding the suspension, but she was not satisfied with their decision. (Id., Ex. A at 20.) She asserts that, on August 26, 2010, she met with the Grievance Committee, as a Step III grievance procedure and, on September 21, 2010, she was notified that the Grievance Committee recommended removing the suspension and issuing a written warning. (Id., Ex. A at 20-21.) Phillips claims that, on September 22, 2010, she met with the City Manager, as part of Step IV of the grievance procedure and during the meeting:

[T]he Hartsell Recreation Supervisor stated policy [sic] was not followed. [Phillips] asked supervisor why [Phillips] was suspended. Hartsell Recreation supervisor stated [Phillips] was offensive in informing supervisor that by reducing hours, a financial burden was being placed upon [Phillips] and food was being taken out of [her] children's mouths. . . . [Phillips] requested that the administration be investigated for unfair practices and not following city policy.

(Id., Ex. A at 21-22 (emphasis added).) On October 28, 2010, Phillips notified Defendant that she was resigning. (Id., Ex. A at 22.)

B. Procedural Background

On November 10, 2010, Phillips filed her Complaint against Defendant in the Superior Court of Cabarrus County, North Carolina. (Docket Entry 1, Ex. A at 1.) The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII (id. at 3-6); (2) unlawful discrimination in violation of Title VII (id. at 6-12); (3) "Failing and refusing to take corrective and appropriate action to remedy the situation or its effects of discrimination, racial harassment, hostile, and unsafe working environment" in violation of Title VII (id. at 12); (4) retaliation in violation of the North Carolina Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act ("REDA") in the form of a written reprimand (id. at 12-13); (5) retaliation in violation of REDA in the form of reduced assignment of...