Spriggs v. Senior Services of Southeastern Virginia (SSSEVA) et al, No. 2:2011cv00182 - Document 42 (E.D. Va. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER - Senior Services of Southeastern Virginia (SSSVA) Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 29, is GRANTED and Ms. Sprigg's claims are dismissed with prejudice, noting appeal procedures. This Opinion and Order shall constitute the final judgment of the Court in this matter, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Ms. Spriggs and counsel for SSSVA. Entered and filed 5/29/12. (Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Bradford Stillman on 5/29/12). Copy mailed to plaintiff 5/29/12. (ecav)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I-£L/ FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division CATHY M. SPRIGGS, , CiXHK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT f'.-":: ;" ' Plaintiff, ~~ v. Case No.: SENIOR SERVICES 2:llcvl82 OF SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA et al., Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER Defendant ("SSSVA") M. a to ("Ms. pro Skirven to August Summary of Southeastern her CEO of on claims of race-based Mr. 24. of the Skirven. ECF No. Judgment February and 15, ECF Court July No. 13. filed an of On October to 1. and 1964 2012, accompanying SSSVA filed memorandum Spriggs and 11. On Complaint retaliation against 2011, the only defendant John Ms. Amended Dismiss and response ECF No. 6, Spriggs In granted 2011. Act Ms. employer, 6, Rights Virginia Plaintiff Cathy 2011, discrimination Motion leaving SSSVA as On her timely Civil Skirven's 28, the Spriggs VII March SSSVA. Dismiss, complaint against SSSVA, against Ms. Jurisdiction, No. to On 2011, SSSVA and Mr. ECF Skirven") , Motion Title granted Spriggs"). Complaint amend 3, alleging under se ("Mr. SSSVA's leave Services has moved for summary judgment Spriggs filed Senior for in a both the Court Lack of the action. Motion for exhibits. ECF Nos. 6, 29-30. 2012, Court Ms. March 26, a at Ms. on SSSVA's 11:00 Spriggs court submissions, Court hearing 2012, and official filed an Opposition Memorandum on March and SSSVA filed a Rebuttal Brief on March 8, held SSSVA Spriggs a.m. appeared FINDS that Spriggs employed at to assist services, Tidewater SSSVA of as the and over an Id. 1 On March 14, African 1986. the on represented Smith parties' contained the American that age of was the written herein, Ms. in Term 1989. Care supervised 5 8. 2012, As sixty. 1-3. worker" Id. It f seniors the and 7. been SSSVA is operates provides a programs a range of delivery, throughout Virginia's was Prior ("LTC coordinated Director of the 6. has meal Spriggs Department and and who 1 transportation, Id_;_ social Mem. develops to flfl woman Def.'s Supp. low-cost "aging Long on Esq., Gloria reasons housekeeping Region. Department") services. an including Long Term Care 2008, is corporation persons in-home-care, and se. Judgment SUMMARY OF FACTS SSSVA since not-for-profit Summary The SSSVA is entitled to summary judgment. I. Ms. pro Based arguments, for Kelvin Newsome, reporter. oral Motion 2012.* began her promoted to its career to many Department, Director abolition Department" of Ms. at or in "the SSSVA's Spriggs's the Court issued a Rule 56 Order directing Ms. Spriggs to file exhibits in support of her Opposition Memorandum by March 23, 2012, and allowing SSSVA to respond to her submissions on or before April 2, 2012. ECF No. 37. Ms. Spriggs and SSSVA both complied with the Order. -2- primary to responsibility department "aware and staff" staff" and sensitive and to strategies to was to to her the "provide secondary work "proactively assure leadership and responsibility related needs guidance production September supervisor, her Id. on to on f Ex. 11 at Mr. remove her Department when prior the Mem. in Opp. responsibilities and managerial notified her Ex. J. changed, status. 2007, Ms. but as 3, to the 2007. Program Id. 1 Director she Spriggs Dep. 9. and placed 31, 2008.3 he intended the LTC 27, probation, Mr. of Cathy Spriggs 63, direct November position retained her at 5 at 2. of On Developer, assure she was still that Spriggs's 2 At the time relevant to this dispute, employees. while of Ms. Ex. January Spriggs training and evaluation ended. Spriggs As of Spriggs's period completion December Ms. through position probation Ms. effective annual On November 7, from her Skirven, probation Skirven reassigned Developer" Am. to 9. Mr. Spriggs's performance-based 46, Skirven 2007, performed Ms. probation, 2007, 4, be performance was and smooth and positive work flow."2 Def.'s Supp. Mem. On to stresses and implement optimum direction "Program Dep. at 52; Ms. Spriggs's salary, benefits, 69. the Department had 29 3 The performance evaluation that SSSVA has submitted lists the end date of Ms. Spriggs's probation as January 4, 2008, but Mr. Skirven apparently extended the date to January 31, 2008. Def.'s Supp. Mem. Ex. 11 at 10. -3- SSSVA apparently Term Care Roughly hired after nine Mary Aging, it removed months Levy which, position abolished for the Ms. as after Ms. Spriggs and a position of Spriggs Ms. from Spriggs's position Director responsibilities the of of Long higher is Long position. of the Care SSSVA Center essentially Term salary by the of reassignment, Director contends, Director the same with $15,000.4 for fewer Ms. Levy is white. Ms. and Spriggs filed retaliation Commission 22. On Spriggs plan. ("EEOC") June stating with 4, that had 2010, it been on a charge the the 23. 28, 2010, the EEOC Id. Ex. 28, discrimination Equal 27, EEOC Def.'s a Mem. determination to believe A. Ms. Prior was to placed Def.'s Ms. Exs. Spriggs Spriggs timely Spriggs's 2007 the on issued Ms. September a failed, a race Opportunity Supp. and proposing efforts on Ex. letter that Ms. conciliation 2011. 24. Conciliation 2007. cause against based Employment issued reasonable retaliated Ex. U.S. December found Id. of notice commenced this probation performance-based probation In 2005 of on December right action to on sue. March Probation and Reassignment 2007 5-6. and and 2006, she period, in Ms. 1993 Spriggs and received 2003. positive 4 Ms. Spriggs has not provided any evidence of Ms. Levy's salary and there for Aging is in no the job description for record. -4- the Director of the Center evaluations became and Ms. to K. Decl. In SSSVA it the was was Deparment, Ms. Skirven of position of reassigned female, Levy Mr. Department decreased. Ms. the Id. f 21. Levy pay Skirven 2005, raise. in John Id. II 24. of Skirven evaluating noticed increased Skirven identified Decl. fl Skirven Id. that but 25; problems LTC 1 a f 20. performing the LTC Department reports, Mr. "Transit and reassigned the white male, 22-23. to Mr. Id. SI the Skirven Department, Department a black 24. in June 2007 referrals for the rendered had services Supp. how inefficiencies the Skirven service Def.'s -5- and Supervisor. actual with for evaluating into Nutrition the Decl. to Department, the determine departmental Mr. Developer. to problems her probation, Transportation departments Transportation began Prior on 2007 responsible SSSVA's Based the director had Mr. October Spriggs's evaluations evaluator identified Program Ms. to the position of Wellness Ms. after the and an organization. Department. Department." director evaluation to evaluated consolidated Wellness up as program Levy Levy 7-8. in departmental evaluations. Ms. Exs. supervisor 2005 leading function the Nutrition that her Id. 12. months departmental and II conducting Levy direct approving could better Ms. increases. Spriggs's subsequent Skirven salary Mem. communication Ex. and 10 at 3. procedures within the LTC Department. She summarized her findings as follows: 1. Number of than this care customers time receiving last coordinator services year with little are 20% less or no change in staffing. 2. There is minimal, if any, trust in management. 3. Work performance for long term staff is very cumbersome, time consuming and not people focused, therefore, taking away time and services for the customer. 4. Misuse of agency time management services by of staff unmonitored and provision agencies of increases the risk of financial disaster for the agency. Def.'s Supp. Mem. assessment, Ms. Ex. 10 Spriggs at 6. was At the aware of the decreased productivity and had placed the director on probation assistant director, employees on that at as probation. employees in the placed Id. at department Ms. LTC Ms. Spriggs Dep. other Spriggs suffered from Levy's Department's Department's several 43. of assistant at 38. The departmental was also low aware morale. Id. 42. After receiving Department, Mr. performance ratings of Supp. Mem. Ex. Ms. Skirven review. automatically Needs place 11 3-11. Mr. Levy's to at 2. Skirven employee Mr. Ms. SSSVA's Improvement an assessment conducted Pursuant of "needs improvement" at consequence. turn, in a time Skirven Ms. . "two . . or ." Spriggs a with -6- Ms. Spriggs to more will Def.'s rating in eighteen of forty-nine categories. met LTC annual Unacceptable probation gave the Spriggs's policies, and/or on of review Id. her evaluation and September Skirven the 4, Department a directed Dep. at improvement about when drafts plan were f that Upon longer the going November 9, to was develop at Mr. an plan. Spriggs template Mem. plan, Skirven over though that Between improvement 13; Ms. her November Ms. email an disagree her and for Ex. parties 44-45. and Skirven informed rescheduled of Mr. Skirven removing ended. this Ms. producing Mr. as her Skirven news, serve 2007, Id. Mr. Supp. the of 28. a The complete person and 2007, period logic 46. Mr. leadership improvement repeatedly in 1 time, on Spriggs concerning Several resolve to plan. mutual plan. 7, he receiving about to scheduled the to at that probation, Def. 2007, times Id. Spriggs Dep. Department Spriggs's Ms. inadequate. 16, LTC At 2007. 22, was obligation November probationary and multiple about sent Skirven November concerns performance Spriggs Mr. 27. Spriggs's Skirven Spriggs were her a the on probation. Ms. October that and meetings told Ms. of 30; tardy Spriggs's On on Ms. communicated Ms. about complete admits 2007, concerns Mr. Decl. Spriggs 1 and placed her to of Decl. condition her assessment Skirven his 44-46. Skirven Leavy's 2007. reviewed As 2, Ms. a with Director Decl. Spriggs 1 33; of LTC. informed -7- Ms. of Spriggs when her Spriggs Dep. 75. plan Spriggs Ms. and LTC questioned performance Director Skirven as met Mr. if she Dep. Spriggs Skirven was 75. via no On email that the told her 13, most recent that 2007. she Def. stressed November she Ex. needed to and by letter that race-based 2007, Mr. Ms. Spriggs Spriggs Dep. probation as at Ms. since she 51-52. Director B. Ms. as has Spriggs the new probation Dep. 83-84. reassignment assistance she in was doing claims that she to her perform Ex. email he wanted she 2007, to missed the still had she 20. attorney notified 21, at been 4. the victim of November 27, she Program Developer on On SSSVA and informed her that Spriggs not same December permitted to 3, 2007. complete her LTC. been her reassignment period of 16, had was by November Spriggs she Ex. the and Spriggs's Performance as Program Developer Spriggs started Ms. Id. plan if believed She of Id. Spriggs's with Ms. would begin her duties In Id. discrimination. Skirven met 2. November Ms. unsatisfactory harder Skirven. 2007, was complete at work on not delivered a plan to Mr. 16, plan 18, probation. deadline, On November the send him a Mem. complete 13 of needed to Supp. that successfully draft to serving position, and in she was successfully She claims, required so. Program position that as PL's completed move Compl. December placed however, to Developer that it ECF SSSVA 2007. a in When six-month June 2009. subsequent to her offices 5, on at and No. provided 13. She no also received little to no guidance from SSSVA on how new job even after -8- requesting assistance and supervision. receive her a lcL_ 4-5; job positive period to Spriggs the Center apply for for Aging, the Rule judgment dispute as 56 to in June of the only shortly she Id. a 64. fact it only and Fed. might Rules affect The of party motion," material (1986). not hired Ms. movant Civ. the return a 242, P. is no 248 of to A fact is the (1986). for genuine entitled 56(a). outcome verdict Procedure, case. A dispute "is such that the non-moving Id^ seeking responsibility of its her is "genuine" only if the evidence could U.S. "there fact party." told Civil of material jury 477 if the R. of Lobby, reasonable for 6. Liberty a Although SSSVA Anderson v. is received Director Skirven at before Skirven has hiring Mr. Mr. 67-69. PL's Compl. granted material if was Dep. Federal judgment as a matter of law." "material" and that 2008. until SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD should be any SSSVA Spriggs apparently did not Nevertheless, position. states position. II. summary that she 5. Spriggs, new She position Id. her aware 82-83. the Ms. in Levy for the position Under for supervise became Dep. ended. evaluations Ms. to description probation continues Spriggs This and fact. summary informing the demonstrating Celotex burden "may district the Corp. be judgment v. court absence of Catrett, discharged -9- "bears by of the the initial basis a genuine 477 U.S. for dispute 317, 323 'showing' that is, pointing out evidence to to the support the movant makes "to district the such a designate for answers specific trial." showing, Court must favorable 763 F.2d summary Int'l. view to if "the a matter Cir. of v. 1995) showing 324 (4th is law," Consol. F.3d the Coin A. the basis Spriggs of 2000e-2(a). or to refuse Ms. Caterers claims race Title VII hire discriminate compensation, 477 in of or by the one issue the light the most Inc., "cannot defeat 2009). grant at file, Fashions, party 56 on evidence," Cir. Corp., U.S. required Although nonmovant must is genuine a Floor (4th that If 325. Arms Moreover, must prevail summary F.3d Am. as judgment. 542, 545 (4th 251-52). ANALYSIS Spriggs's Disparate Treatment Claim her to 82 Court (quoting Anderson, and scintilla 78, is omitted). Terry's one-sided III. Ms. a at Id. of affidavits, there the absence and admissions whole 1985), merely so a see Cir. 563 that (quotations as an nonmoving party interrogatories, record with the is case." and by her own nonmovant, Herbert, evidence O'Connor the 610 judgment v. at the 604, to facts Id. there nonmoving party's go beyond the pleadings depositions, court that or in to she violation makes against terms, that it of discriminated Title unlawful discharge any was any for -10- or an See 42 with privileges or to § "fail otherwise respect of on U.S.C. employer individual, individual conditions, VII. against to his employment, because § of such 2000e-2(a). Where discriminatory Title VII McDonnell Life & a Ins. framework, the shifts proffered case involving v. ultimate the way to If of burden of of Cmty. in proving evidence Affairs v. treatment merely of 567, -11- Under establishing so, 577 the burden defendant's See id. is whether 133, the Reeves 153 (2000), sensible, orderly experience 1978). plaintiff. 248, 253 as it Furnco At discrimination U.S. at discrimination (U.S. the the reason discrimination," with 450 a common intentional Burdine, (citing discrimination," U.S. the succeeds, the employment of rests does a Colonial 2005) discrimination. light U.S. v. (1973)). she that 530 "is through of of establish non-discriminatory every question 438 792 burden show Inc., to Cir. If intentional evidence the the for framework Waters, of (4th U.S.C. evidence Diamond defendant to 42 evidence U.S. disparate Prods., v. preponderance in of critical the the pretext victim the Corp. 411 legitimate, question on Constr. Dep't mere shifting the plaintiff 318 carries plaintiff Plumbing burden a claim the 310, ." direct discrimination. evaluate bears times, a was Sanderson and is the . framework. Green, plaintiff the reason "The v. of . lacks allow F.3d treatment. to 318. plaintiff Corp . circumstantial 416 produce adverse back with case must plaintiff courts Co., the facie race burden-shifting Douglas defendant for animus, Douglas Ace. prima a violation McDonnell this individual's all by a Texas (1981). The prima facie case non-discriminatory raises not, the To of product establish Title a of VII, protected met employer's was protected 354 was employment filled F.3d by SSSVA 285 facie case which she complains even if her action, met for that she SSSVA's Program Spriggs sufficient suffered treatment (4) claim fails and more that suffered job the at she at at position a member level time that of remained applicants Martin treatment employment a the than 253-54. is adverse duties thereby likely id. "(1) common the open outside Logistics Mgmt., or the Inc., 2004). Spriggs cannot because to an adverse her expectations Supp. Mem. to adverse job because nothing -12- an the it 17. at in a level and her record that her the finding the of employment reassigned action, prima action, Although a a conduct adverse duties support employment of employment when at establish none constitutes evidence an of qualified Ms. Def.'s was, expectations performing legitimate show her Lockheed amounts not treatment case she and reassignment Developer. contains must discrimination was most disparate legitimate (4th Cir. argues the See (2) v. adverse treatment performing Hill eliminate facie prima action; to discrimination. similarly class." 277, the unlawful class; (3) adverse for plaintiff action; her that a a she serves reasons inference the under merely to record that Ms. disparate suggests that LTC she was satisfactorily Director at performing the time of the adverse the responsibilities of action. 1. Adverse Employment Action An that employee the treatment conditions of v. 178 Goldin, typically loss asserting of her as to for 2007 probation supports The Fourth see 376-77 or (4th Id. pay Spriggs when or terminated her her or all probation reduced that she her the her on position of probation that are benefits, placed to Boone performed (1) (2) and actions alleges SSSVA reassigned Spriggs's Such in evaluation, (3) 2000e-2(a); responsibility, Ms. actions § 1999). decrease conclusion Circuit in Ms. v. Cir. recognizes adverse early. but the The early constituted 2004), for Spriggs & but retained job Hamilton, . only where title, job promotion that employment Booz-Allen compensation, opportunity Although (4) the Ms. Cir. show affected the terms U.S.C. supervisory and actionable James "decrease (4th claim must adverse actions. constitute VII, or Director, record 42 "demotion, employment Developer, employment 255 treatment complains See promotion." Program of she performance LTC termination 235, title adverse September which F.3d opportunities disparate employment. limited job suffered of a level . her -13- . ." pay, reassignments actions Inc., they of Boone, under 368 F.3d result can Title 371, in a responsibilities, 178 benefits, F.3d and at 256. managerial status when SSSVA Developer, she discloses managed Ms. in and Spriggs the that The title as not only most also 371 Cir. (4th Spriggs's action. In James, LTC and to her, supervisory and but record Ms. Upon Spriggs reassignment, construing is denotes the Department, it Program typically employees. title, of the reasonable record to responsibilities. infer Indeed, hearing. James v. did Booz-Allen & in 2004), reassignment title supervisory SSSVA conceded as much at F.3d the this her cites position "Director" of favorable Defendant the job numerous lost lost to responsibilities, Director supervised light she her supervisory that her lost responsibilities. significant reassigned support its not of constitute Hamilton, an Inc., position adverse 368 that Ms. employment the Fourth Circuit concluded that an employee who had been transferred from the position of Project Manager to Director a did of Projects on discrete contract not suffer an adverse employment action because he continued to enjoy the same pay, benefits, James, 368 plaintiff company and F.3d discrete at retained her his The position Ld^ from employer, project, terms 376-77. significant. distinguishable vis-a-vis other at that and court as 376. in rather detrimentally conditions found Senior Ms. her changed. -14- employment. fact because that the within Associate Spriggs's James than the of the situation her position position vis-a-vis Accordingly, is the a Court finds that the record contains evidence finder to reasonably conclude that Ms. Program Developer responsibility Title and the constituted sufficient Spriggs's concomitant an adverse loss for a fact reassignment to of employment supervisory action under VII. Ms. Spriggs's probation also performance September constituted evaluation 2007 performance adverse may employment qualify as an evaluation actions. adverse A and poor employment action "where the employer subsequently uses the evaluation as a basis to detrimentally recipient's where of an employment.'" employee's probation employee alter on the James, failure establishes to See Rachel-Smith Md. 2003) v. 368 meet grounds probation may also FTData, be or conditions F.3d the for an Inc., ("To the extent that terms at the 377. Moreover, performance objectives dismissal, adverse 247 of F. placing employment Supp. 2d 734, an action. 746 (D. Plaintiff's performance was to be reviewed on a weekly basis while she was placed on probation and lack of [would] be placement that performance considered on probation adversely employment.") Spriggs's improvement or probation objectives grounds may affected (internal plan, meeting be for bi-weekly an omitted). development performance -15- this period Plaintiff's employment conditions quotations involved dismissal, considered the during of The of Plaintiff's terms a action of Ms. performance assessments, and transfer or probation. termination PL's Am. evaluation relied the probation to Spriggs's adverse 5 2007 and her 2005) to evidence Nye (holding evaluation closer See that Ms. position evaluation actions. D. that termination and v. thrust and Mr. LTC Roberts, letter plaintiff Ms. F. App'x reprimand down constituted that constituted 145 of during Director. conclude probation 2007 Skirven conduct as to complete Spriggs's Spriggs's her sufficient successfully probation, Ms. from to Ex. her and performance Cir. performance prompted is employment (4th track there failed Mem. evaluation remove Accordingly, she Supp. performance on if 1, and disciplinary adverse employment actions). The of Ms. action. that her her Court cannot Spriggs's Mr. however, probation Skirven term as find, probationary period. Mr. November 27, 2007, that on December 3, 2007. Other Spriggs was termination independent her of of her reassignment, Spriggs could to the have Ms. was than and to her probationary nothing saved her on then new in the position -16- It LTC 7, Ms. Program the Spriggs date not on the which early no harm precipitate suggests Director of Developer exacted did 2007, completion duties, record as upon as period itself. employment November informed begin termination adverse accelerating commence reassignment an early terminate Skirven she the Spriggs Director would on Ms. constituted informed LTC that that if she Ms. had been allowed cannot to complete conclude that Ms. reassignment therefore of a failed evidence 2007 established to VII is disparate demonstrate element she Ms. Spriggs objectives of probation after morale the in meeting terms reveals of performance her Mr. performance she was low failed probation, improvement a prima She and She has facie has, her case however, employer's occurred. to namely plan.5 It was not Skirven and that meeting placed evaluation. service-delivery that that probation, meeting she when Department established evidence the LTC 2007 of actions that position her a month Legitimate Expectations concedes her Court demonstrate actions. claim. was legitimate expectations when these 2 . Employer's to employment treatment that probation evaluation, second the action under Title VII. sufficient adverse the Accordingly, Spriggs's performance constituted Title Ms. adverse employment the Spriggs's probation. terminating early amounted to an Nonetheless, her She her benchmarks. the is timely her admits staff comply development axiomatic that on that was Moreover, satisfactorily the not the with of a employers 5 Although Ms. Spriggs contends that she was not given sufficient guidance courts on look the to parameters the of perception her of Performance the decision Improvement maker rather Plan, than the employee to determine whether the employee was meeting performance goals. See Smith v. Flax, 618 F.2d 1062, 1067 (4th Cir. 1980). Nothing in the record suggests that Mr. Skirven's expectations regarding Ms. Spriggs's timely completion of a performance improvement plan were unreasonable. -17- legitimately expect their responsibilities in remedial efforts designed to See par. 954, 960 (4th evaluation, not matter of 1996). her attorney it on her of her new her comply to job with the time prima Serv. of her Ms. Co., 2007 Spriggs case disparate of F.3d performance Accordingly, facie 80 up was simply she cannot discrimination, treatment fails as a weekly of and a a that letter 16, in SSSVA (1) She SSSVA claims terminating offices assistance; including month her retaliated informing 2009. bi-weekly three probation Spriggs's Retaliation Claim argues to move position, complete upon (3) her meetings new VII's a to discriminate against any job review; her and after against retaliated early; and guidance placing allowing in denial progress, (4) (2) refusing description, without her and her to former position. provision employee -18- SSSVA provide assess position anti-retaliation to her claims reassignment or performance her probation failing denial of against that her the probationary period for her Title "to by: provide moving denial on sent November requiring to their law. Spriggs against and & reassignment, a perform unsatisfactory performance Applications race-based B. Ms. Ms. of to manner expectations. elements for bring At and these claim to Tech. probation, the her satisfactory v. Cir. meeting establish and Evans a employees . . makes . it because unlawful he has opposed this any practice subchapter, assisted, or proceeding, § or lacks direct facie that acted she engaged adverse action." Cir. letter activity. facie It case Spriggs of in Hoyle of a v. protected activity, complains subsequent to and to VII, the a (3) she the of the causal asserted 321, November 16, 337 2009 protected establish activity prove a F.3d she prima employer the treatment protected the was Skirven before a must constituted Mr. her (2) burden plaintiff 650 cannot because the and LLC, attorney U.S.C. Douglas there that 42 plaintiff activity that testified, establish activity, by investigation, where "To Freightliner, none an McDonnell and reassign charge, in claims concedes practice subchapter." the protected however, intent this her, a manner protected discrimination his made Title Spriggs's argues, employment retaliation. SSSVA Ms. any apply under the 2011) . from of against between has retaliation claim adversely connection to he under also evidence retaliation (1) (4th Courts unlawful in hearing framework an because participated 2000e-3(a). shifting or made a prima informed engaged of in which amounts to Ms. any she an adverse action.6 The Court agrees. 6 The before treatment November protected Ms. of activity Spriggs's which 16, and, Ms. 2007 Spriggs has no therefore, retaliation claim. -19- complains causal is not that connection considered as occurred to part the of For adverse anti-retaliation conditions Fe Rwy. of Co. treatment provision, the v. White, Id. Title 548 unlawful 67. promote an the from supervisors, See id. the In central petty circumstances, charge. Burlington The record is treatment that her completion time, Ms. accompli. position of her The at to record 68. But it manners it the 2007, as LTC not have pursuing by workplace. adverse, deterred considering a of shield snubbing the to when victim materially position, the a all discrimination protected Mr. Skirven Director period that -20- conclusion position reassignment discloses meant the does in would support 7, is action adverse." is annoyances, action an Santa mechanisms been or Spriggs's to remedial & and 71. probationary Spriggs's an N. "materially provision VII's terms Rather, has good making Ms. November is minor of the she at whether U.S. subsequent On in that plaintiff's fails worker it Title Burlington (2006). Act's i^ whether from 548 the See the reasonable adverse. to lack question in 64 if slights, simple person 53, under affect employment. believes determining reasonable the and not anti-retaliation discrimination. employee actionable need U.S. access reasonably prohibited it retaliation VII's unfettered employee be plaintiff's constitutes at to would activity informed would in was Ms. have a found her materially Ms. Spriggs terminate January 2008. essentially Spriggs that upon At that a fait understood this fact to to the extent complete position Ms. a when 2009, Skirven fact reassignment that eleven informed was Mr. days attorney questioned improvement reassignment the Spriggs's she performance Mr. Spriggs's 7, that a does not continuing plan her of foregone Skirven after her for LTC Director decision. the Because conclusion decided receiving amount to the obligation to the a on November fast-track letter her from materially Ms. adverse action. The required the a same record the period her the to probationary in her probation the that Spriggs received little flexibility the demonstrating intense as LTC that impacted in scrutiny terms her of period of the In performance second that absence or was duties. Spriggs's other new and penalties the Ms. her her of in than job. In probation afforded This is in accompanied any second future SSSVA Nothing anything scrutiny and that position. was during performing Director. the new commencement suggests probation adversely the complete that attendant considerable to for evidence Ms. contrast to indicates formality fact, true Spriggs Ms. holds evidence probation professional prospects,7 a fact finder cannot reasonably conclude that it was 7 The Court notes the position of that Ms. Program Spriggs has performed successfully in Developer reassignment. -21- from the time of her a materially adverse (whether an examining 197 action all (4th action.8 materially adverse must Parsons v. Cir. 2007) evaluation alone would pursuing retaliation State *5 a Univ., (W.D. judgment on as a a June F. Supp. probation not 2d to not No. law at 746 to an determine F. worker Polytechnic awarded WL 2580639, motion of of from Inst. plaintiff action); App'x performance defendant's adverse & at for damages performance Rachel-Smith, the terms it whether at 221 negative extension (examining by Wynne, Va. (granting jury 71 determined be 68, reasonable v. because amount U.S. 7:08-CV-005792011 after claim a Maron 2011) of that dissuade claim); 29, matter did (holding Action retaliation benchmarks 247 Civil Va. 548 circumstances); the is See Burlington the constituted plaintiff's an adverse action). The into remaining the snubs. category An Spriggs's would Cf. 6 This Rather, is to there finder same or can similar is that simply infer provide 2011 to the an an in second the -22- of the at probation first. *6 and moving in Ms. Univ. of (M.D.N.C. probationary retaliatory record fall discrimination employee's the with worker a 4104642, prohibited as employee Governors WL complains inconveniences, pursuing extending terms Spriggs reasonable or nothing that a Of , amount adverse to Bd. 2d Ms. annoyances, making v. say never which dissuade from Supp. not could fact failure McNeill F. of workplace hardly position N.C. , period of employer's assistance charge. actions from conduct. which consisted of the the Sept. 14, travel 2011) (holding requests printer, and and car failure did not Similarly, although out-of-her element in that consequence of Burlington, 548 protects an retaliation feedback Spriggs not suggesting with evaluations might protected that a F.3d where to 1202, refusal the lunch professional 1210 (10th supervisor began answer her Cf. questions that she was and Cir. invite after she as a See provision but from constructive desirable, Ms. aware, failure any of to effectively regular performance employee an at from 68 employee engaging (explaining to lunch significantly Johnson (finding employee be not 548 contributes avoiding may provide 2010) way to supervision.9 is Burlington, and failed any Although reasonable to has retaliation, Court advancement); 9 The Court notes that Ms. suggesting all employer's a actions). anti-retaliation harm"). the an discourage or laptop, unsupported in and approve new a she suffered to adverse felt performance employee activity. unless employees that an supervisor's trivial and have position, from one's cited, may ("The injury on plaintiff feedback 67 failure materially work not produces communicate in at guidance has to desired U.S. the assign new her individual and authority or this to Spriggs her she employer's amount Ms. demonstrate that and complained v. no Weld Cnty., adverse appeared of to is the 594 action too busy discrimination) ; Spriggs has not submitted any evidence entitled to -23- these privileges. Thorn v. Sebelius, (supervisor's not amount adverse the failure to reasonably 766 action evidence to adverse conclude Supp. include 2d she 585, 603 plaintiff action). that after in the F. Because Ms. a Spriggs engaged on (D. a Md. design fact 2011) team did finder suffered a cannot materially protected activity she has record, in failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII. Accordingly, based on SSSVA is entitled to summary judgment on that claim. IV. Ms. Spriggs disparate has treatment forecast evidence probation, and actions However, she employer's She has her or amounted pursuing to a raise whether retaliation. she prima facie case under Title VII. She negative to evaluation, were show that she at to sufficient present to genuine the after Accordingly, SSSVA employee of SSSVA's -24- of In meeting the Ms. fact her actions. that the letter actions sum, material provision. evidence in her position on employment of these received adverse charge. dispute was the time materially victim adverse that from would from making Spriggs on the has issue intentional discrimination Motion Summary for of has placement anti-discrimination expectations discrimination was a reassignment reasonable a present VII's experienced dissuaded a failed of she her failed failed to retaliation Title legitimate attorney have or subsequent has also treatment failed that under CONCLUSION or Judgment, ECF No. with 29, the the case. Ms. the this date IT in The and and Ms. Sprigg's this Clerk Order shall matter, and is further and Order to Ms. Spriggs final Clerk Street, the Opinion Court Opinion to GRANTED claims are dismissed prejudice. This of is of may order this Norfolk, SO appeal by Virginia such the Clerk DIRECTED a the the is for judgment written United States 23510, within judgment a copy entered of Courthouse, thirty to close of this SSSVA. notice (30) pursuant appeal 600 with Granby days from MAGISTRATE JUDGE judgment. ORDERED. UNITED STATES Norfolk, final DIRECTED to mail and counsel from filing Court, of entry of IS Spriggs constitute Virginia May 23, 2012 -25-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
