Turner v. Ga. Sec'y of State

848 F.Supp.2d 1361

Jacqueline D. TURNER, Plaintiff,

v.State of GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 5:10–CV–187(MTT).

United States District Court,

M.D. Georgia,

Macon Division.

Jan. 30, 2012.

Lonzy F. Edwards, Macon, GA, for Plaintiff.

Annette M. Cowart, Department of Law, State of Georgia, Romy Diane Smith, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.

ORDER

MARC T. TREADWELL, District Judge.

This case is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docs. 18, 36). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. Procedural History

On November 30, 2007, after resigning from her job with the Georgia Secretary of State (the SoS), Plaintiff Jacqueline Turner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging Defendants Shawn LaGrua and the SoS discriminated against her because of her gender and race. On February 8, 2010, Turner received her Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC. On May 7, Turner filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 2000c, alleging race and gender discrimination and due process and equal protection violations.

In her amended complaint, Turner asserts against the SoS and Shawn LaGrua, individually, claims for: (1) discrimination on the basis of race and gender because the Defendants failed to promote her to the position of Deputy Inspector General; (2) discrimination on the basis of race and gender because the Defendants failed to hire her for the position of Investigation Area Supervisor after her position with the SoS was eliminated; (3) disparate treatment; (4) constructive discharge; (5) hostile work environment; and (6) retaliation.

The Defendants have moved for summary judgment on all claims.

II. Statement of Facts

Jacqueline Turner, an African–American female, was hired in December 2001 as an Investigation Area Supervisor with the SoS Professional Licensing Boards (PLB) division. On May 13, 2002, Turner became Deputy Director of Enforcement, and then on October 24, 2002, her job title changed to Investigations Assistant Director. In July 2006, Turner's job title changed again to Director of Investigations. All of Turner's positions with the SoS were with the PLB division.

A. Defendant Shawn LaGrua and Plaintiff Turner's Interactions

In January 2007, Defendant Shawn LaGrua was hired as the Inspector General of the SoS. LaGrua did not officially become Turner's supervisor until July 2, 2007. However, LaGrua “began focusing” on the PLB division's operations in late March 2007. (Doc. 18–2, Def. Stmt. of Undisputed Facts at ¶ 9).

According to Turner, LaGrua “immediately started trying to ‘build a case’ against [Plaintiff], even though she did not know [Plaintiff] or the quality of [Plaintiff's] job performance.” (Doc. 20–3, Turner Aff. at ¶ 3). Turner also alleges LaGrua met with her approximately every two weeks “to talk” but “yelled” at her every time, constantly belittled her, kept her out of meetings that affected her job duties, and refused to answer her questions. (Doc. 31, Turner Amend. Comp. at ¶ 22). She further contends that LaGrua yelled at her and slammed shut Turner's office door in the presence of coworkers. (Doc. 31, Turner Amend. Comp. at ¶ 22). Rosetta Adams, another SoS employee, confirms that LaGrua yelled at Turner and slammed her office door while “pretty much most of the staff was in the office.” (Doc. 43, Adams Dep. at 25:21–22).

Turner also claims that LaGrua undermined her authority by telling Turner's subordinates that “things [would] change around here when I get my new Chief” (apparently referring to a replacement for Turner), and that they should no longer follow Turner's directions. (Doc. 31, Turner Amend. Comp. at ¶ 22). Turner contends LaGrua eventually stopped communicating with her completely, and that LaGrua told Turner's subordinates to report to LaGrua instead of Turner. (Doc. 20–3, Turner Aff. at ¶¶ 41, 42).

In addition, Turner alleges that LaGrua “discriminatorily denied” Turner access to training that she needed to keep her POST certification,¹ but that white males were allowed to attend the POST training sessions. (Doc. 31, Turner Amend. Comp. at ¶ 16). Further, according to Turner, LaGrua refused to allow her to attend another training conference, even though her acting supervisor, Don Munday, had approved her attendance. Turner claims LaGrua sent a subordinate, who is a white male, in her place.² (Doc. 20–3, Turner Aff. at ¶ 35). She also contends LaGrua questioned Turner's leave, but did not question the leave of white employees. (Doc. 31, Turner Amend. Comp. at ¶ 17). Moreover, Turner argues that she had received “exceeds expectations” reviews on performance evaluations prior to LaGrua's hire and had never been formally reprimanded, even by LaGrua. Although LaGrua did insist on inserting comments in Turner's last performance evaluation, LaGrua's comments did not affect the outcome of Turner's last performance evaluation. That evaluation qualified Turner for a “performance based” pay increase.

LaGrua contends that all her actions resulted from her concerns regarding Turner's job performance, specifically: (1) Turner's failure to monitor the use of gas cards by her subordinates; (2) Turner's supervision of a particular worker and uneven case distribution; (3) Turner's lack of accrued leave time; (4) Turner's decision to allow an investigator to work alone at night; and, (5) an unnecessary special operation planned by Turner. (Doc. 18–2, Def. Stmt. of Undisputed Facts at ¶ 11). With the exception of (3) and (4), these alleged concerns, plus one other, are the Defendants' legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for failing to promote Turner. Defendants do not argue Turner's failure to accrue leave time and allowing an investigator to work at night were sufficient reasons not to promote Turner.

B. The Savannah Operation

The principal basis for LaGrua's concern with Turner was a special operation Turner said she began planning before the SoS hired LaGrua. According to Munday, in the middle of May 2007, Turner discussed with him the need to plan a confidential used car dealer inspection in the Savannah area. Turner told Munday that there were numerous problems in the Savannah area and that there had not been an inspection of the used car dealers in that area. Based on this information, Munday told Turner to plan a suitable operation. Turner assembled a team, secured hotel reservations in Savannah, and made other plans related to the operation.

A few weeks later, LaGrua asked Munday if he was familiar with the Savannah operation and the reasons Turner had planned the operation. LaGrua told Munday that Turner had not told her about the Savannah operation, and that she learned of the operation through Turner's subordinates. LaGrua expressed concern to Munday about the operation and the resources it would entail, but asked him not to speak to Turner about her concerns.

On June 4, 2007, LaGrua spoke to Turner about the Savannah operation and told Turner the operation was a bad idea. According to Turner, LaGrua yelled at her and accused her of using bad judgment in planning the Savannah operation in front of other coworkers. (Doc. 20–3, Turner Aff. at ¶ 39). Turner contends that she was the only person LaGrua was “belittling” regarding the special operation and that LaGrua was not her supervisor at the time. (Doc. 18–18, Turner Dep. at 48–49). Turner further alleges that LaGrua “accosted” her two or three times more regarding the Savannah operation. (Doc. 18–18, Turner Dep. at 50:4–8).

LaGrua denies that there were complaints in the Savannah area regarding used car sales, and points to an email that Turner sent her regarding used car sales complaints as the basis for her belief. The email listed several counties, all in the Atlanta area with the exception of Bibb County, along with the number of complaints in each listed county. LaGrua contends that the email is proof that there were no complaints in the Savannah area. (Doc. 18–5 at 11; Doc. 18–9, LaGrua Dep. at 38:19–25).

Turner responds that it is clear from the face of her email that it had no relevance to Savannah. The reason the email did not contain any complaints from Savannah was, because, “[i]n an effort to support [LaGrua's] desire to focus on the Metro Atlanta area, [Turner] compiled data showing complaints in [those] areas.” Turner alleges that Savannah is a neglected area of the state, that “[t]here may have been 91 complaints in Savannah at the time the operation was planned,” and that there had been previous operations in the other areas with a high number of complaints. (Doc. 20–3, Turner Aff. at ¶ 36). Further, Rosetta Adams testified that several complaints were logged in the computer regarding the Savannah/Chatham County area, and that the PLB had already constructed a similar operation in the Decatur/DeKalb area before LaGrua was hired by the SoS. (Doc. 43, Adams Dep. at 53–54). LaGrua subsequently cancelled the special operation in Savannah.

C. The Deputy Inspector General Position

On June 7, 2007, the SoS advertised for the position of Deputy Inspector General (Deputy IG). Turner applied for the position, and she contends she was the most qualified candidate because the position description was essentially identical to the duties of the position she held at the time, Director of Investigations/Deputy Director of Enforcement. Turner admits that the Deputy IG position included the responsibility of overseeing all SoS divisions, while Turner's current position was limited to oversight of the PLB. (Doc. 18–18, Turner Dep. at 65–66). However, a comparison of the job descriptions for Turner's job and the Deputy IG position confirms a significant overlap between the two positions.

Turner was not granted an interview. (Doc. 20–3, Turner Aff. at ¶ 20). The Defendants do not dispute that Turner met the qualifications for the position. These requirements included a four...