Rivera v. Palm Beach Cnty.

JOSE RIVERA, Plaintiff, v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, Defendant.

Case Number: 19-CV-81111-Rosenberg/Reinhart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

March 15, 2021

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NOS. 66 and 67)

Before the Court is Defendant Palm Beach County's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 67), Plaintiff Jose Rivera's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 66), and Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (ECF No. 81), which were referred to me by the Honorable Robin L. Rosenberg. ECF Nos. 75 and 85. I have reviewed Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 67), Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Motion for Final Summary Judgment (hereinafter "DSOF") (ECF No. 68), Plaintiff's Response (ECF No. 76), Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (hereinafter "PRSOF") (ECF No. 77), Defendant's Reply (ECF No. 78), Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 66), Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (hereinafter "PSOF") (ECF No. 65), Defendant's Response (ECF No. 72-1), Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (hereinafter "DRSOF") (ECF No. 72), Plaintiff's Second Motion in Limine (ECF No. 81), and Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (ECF No. 83).. I held an oral argument on the motions on January 14, 2021. ECF No. 86. This matter is now ripe for decision. For the reasons discussed below, I RECOMMEND that the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED and that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

For approximately nineteen years, Plaintiff Jose Rivera ("Mr. Rivera") was employed as a bus operator by Palm Tran Inc. ("Palm Tran"), in Palm Beach County, Florida. He was fired after he had an altercation with a bus patron on March 7, 2017. He filed a grievance and participated in an arbitration hearing, after which the Arbitrator denied the grievance. In his Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 21), Mr. Rivera alleges that he was subjected to discrimination in violation of Title VII, the Florida Civil Rights Act ("FCRA") and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, because he is a Hispanic male of Puerto Rican descent. Palm Tran now moves for summary judgment on all counts of the Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 67. Mr. Rivera also moves for summary judgment in his favor on all counts. ECF No. 66.

II. APPLICABLE LAW

1. Summary Judgment

The legal standard on cross-motions for summary judgment does not differ from the standard applied when only one party files a summary judgment motion. See Am. Bankers Ins. Grp. v. United States, 408 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir. 2005). Thestandard is well-settled that summary judgment is authorized only when the moving party establishes that "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). When evaluating a summary judgment motion, the Court must view the evidence and all factual inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Adickes, 398 U.S. at 157.

The moving party bears the burden of establishing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The moving party must initially "present[] evidence which, if uncontradicted, would entitle it to a directed verdict at trial." Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1576 (11th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). Then, "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) shifts to the non-moving party the burden of presenting specific facts showing that such contradiction is possible." Id.

The method by which the moving party can meet its initial burden depends on whether the movant or the non-movant would bear the burden of proof at trial on the underlying legal issue. Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993). "[F]or issues on which the movant would bear the burden of proof at trial, 'that party must show affirmatively the absence of a genuine issue of material fact: it must support its motion with credible evidence ... that would entitle it to a directed verdict if not controverted at trial.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Four Parcels of Real Prop.in Greene & Tuscaloosa Ctys. in State of Ala., 941 F.2d 1428, 1437 (11th Cir. 1991)). In contrast, where, the movant does not bear the burden of proof at trial, it "'is not required to support its motion with affidavits or other similar material negating the opponent's claim in order to discharge this initial responsibility.'" Nunez v. Coloplast Corp., No. 19-CV-24000, 2020 WL 2561364, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2020) (J. Singhal) (citations omitted). Instead, it merely must point out "an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. Alternatively, the moving party may support its motion for summary judgment with affirmative evidence demonstrating that the non-moving party will be unable to prove its case at trial. If the moving party shows the absence of a triable issue of fact by either method, the burden on summary judgment shifts to the nonmoving party, who must show that a genuine issue remains for trial." Four Parcels, 941 F.2d at 1437-38.

If the moving party meets its initial burden, the non-moving party "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in its pleadings." Walker, 911 F.2d at 1576. Rather, it must "make a sufficient showing 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." Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's Subscribing to Policy No. 25693 JB v. Capri of Palm Beach, Inc., 932 F. Supp. 1444, 1446 (S.D. Fla. 1996) (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 2550 (1986)) (J. Moreno), aff'd sub nom. Certain Underwriters v. Capri, 128 F.3d 732 (11th Cir. 1997).

An issue is genuine if "a reasonable trier of fact could return judgment for the nonmoving party." Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States, 516 F.3d1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986)). A fact is material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-moving party's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which a jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party]." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. A self-serving and uncorroborated affidavit can create a genuine dispute of material fact. United States v. Stein, 881 F.3d 853, 858 (11th Cir. 2018); but "[c]onclusory allegations and speculation are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact." Glasscox v. City of Argo, 903 F.3d 1207, 1213 (11th Cir. 2018).

"If more than one inference could be construed from the facts by a reasonable fact finder, and that inference introduces a genuine issue of material fact, then the district court should not grant summary judgment." Bannum, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 901 F.2d 989, 996 (11th Cir. 1990).

In sum, looking to Palm Tran's Motion for Summary Judgment specifically, Palm Tran must first offer facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. Rivera, (or note the absence of facts) sufficient to show that Palm Tran would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If Palm Tran does so successfully, Mr. Rivera bears the burden of producing additional undisputed evidence that shows either (1) Palm Tran is not entitled to judgment at this stage or (2) there is a disputed issue of material fact.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 56.1 set forth the procedures for pleading (and responding to) a Motion for Summary Judgment. Rule 56(c) states:

(1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact . . . is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations . . . 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.

(2) Objection That a Fact Is Not Supported by Admissible Evidence. A party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.

(3) Materials Not Cited. The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Our Local Rule requires even greater specificity. Each asserted or disputed fact must be "supported by specific, pinpoint references" to particular parts of the record. S.D. Fla. L.R. 56.1(b)(1)(B), (b)(2)(A). "The pinpoint citations shall reference pages and line numbers, if appropriate, of exhibits, designate the number and title of each exhibit, and provide the ECF number of all previously filed materials used to support the Statement of Material Facts. When a material fact requires specific evidentiary support, a general citation to an exhibit without a page number or pincite (e.g., 'Smith Affidavit' or 'Jones Deposition' or 'Exhibit A') is non-compliant." S.D. Fla. L.R. 56(b)(1)(B). The Court has discretion to disregard a factual assertion or dispute that is not properly supported by admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); S.D. Fla. L.R. 56.1(c), (d). A factual assertion that is not properly disputed may bedeemed admitted "provided that: (i) the Court finds that the material fact is supported by properly cited record evidence; and (ii) any exception under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 does not apply." S.D. Fla....