Clark v. Western Tidewater Regional Jail Authority, No. 2:2011cv00228 - Document 52 (E.D. Va. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER that 44 WTRJA's Second Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. This Opinion and Order shall constitute the final judgmentof the Court in this matter, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to closethe case. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Bradford Stillman and filed on 5/9/2012. Copy to Plaintiff as directed.(rsim)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGIN! MAY Norfolk Division PAMELA S. 9 2012 CLERK. US DISTRICT COURT CLARK, NORFOLK. VA Plaintiff, v. Case WESTERN No.: 2:llcv228 TIDEWATER REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY, Defendant. OPINION AND Pursuant that the Defendant filed a on the Court Second Supplemental issued Rule February 29, 2012, Regional Jail Authority Motion against for Summary Plaintiff Clark, who is proceeding pro se. Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d WTRJA's briefs March 25, Second Motion that for Summary and the time considerers she 2012, for ECF in No. submissions WTRJA's Second also Clark Summary submitted Judgment. for WTRJA Judgment S. Nos. dated 44-45. Pamela ECF letter Scheduling on 2012. also 16(b) Tidewater Western memorandum 22, to ORDER served See 47. (4th Cir. asked the to passed. for on WTRJA's has R. not Notice 7 (K) ; to rule first filed see In evidence Accordingly, Summary March 1975). Court based on Roseboro 309 WTRJA Motion a 43, supporting ("Clark") Civ. Judgment No. ("WTRJA") and Local response has Clark ECF Order a the Judgment a on and Motion Reply, Court fully briefed below, and ready for WTRJA's motion I. Clark Regional white {the 2008, 2009. sex, 21, 6, She race, "Jail") through a 2011, of her which the Court Specifically, failed to this notice that no merits action of treatment 16 (b) Court on Clark's genuine first granted Based that of On the its a her that, of sexual a facie record, sexual as forth material for harassment officer WTRJA to sue R. case of for the claim from November claims on of April from the 38.x On June judgment, denied matter in law, part. Clark had discriminatory Court was existed and on summary and fact Tidewater alleging right however, harassment jail ("EEOC"). part prima the dispute Clark's set Western against motion in held demonstrate termination. conclude filed at termination discrimination receiving WTRJA reasons probationary date commenced worked Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 28, the FACTUAL BACKGROUND who as the disability after For GRANTED. female, timely and 2011, is PROCEDURAL AND a Jail October 10, is disposition. could not time-barred concerning race-based or the disparate claims. February hearing Dumville, at Esq., 28, 2012, which the Clark appeared Court held appeared on pro behalf of a Supplemental se WTRJA. 1 "R. ###" refers to the record of the parties' Court and corresponds hand corner of to the PageID# each page. -2- located and in S. Rule Lawrence The Court filings with the the upper right subsequently ECF No. file 43, all 2012. issued a which, among dispositive WTRJA Supplemental other motions timely filed Rule things, on or the 16(b) directed before instant 5:00 Rule 16(b) Order. In WTRJA argues that Clark cannot demonstrate claim for sexual harassment liable for work Clark the cannot treatment facts, v. Cir. Indus., the Dep't and 763 the elements work in 2007), harassment. light most Terry's 604, Floor 610 that 747 Fashions, (4th WTRJA claim. Cir. to Inc. is a her not that disparate following Clark, 134, v. 1985), of argues The F.3d 28, the that race-based favorable Justice, elements further a to to memorandum, harassment, It environment Juvenile F.2d of parties pursuant the and Order, on March supporting sexual time-barred, sexual hostile S.C. Inc., is demonstrate construed Gilliam (4th or environment claim alleged its the p.m. motion Supplemental hostile Scheduling are see 135 n.l Burlington pertinent to the resolution of the instant motion.2 A. Alleged Sexual Shortly Lieutenant called leaning into R. back 2 The Court's facts of commencing Phillips, her questions. after this his 312. in Clark's his chair January 26, case in and this and 2012, greater employment supervising office During Harassment began in officer asking conversation, touching October Lt. himself. Opinion and Order detail. -3- ECF No. 41. at her the 2008, Jail, personal Phillips Id. He was had lays out a the visible erection. substance of ask to her incident her and After calling for aware to himself to officers. Phillips October On on was a not regular in female perform R. 9, which officer R. without authorization. session training Lt. not the played in Clark's duties privileges overtures and is Jail or was the also exposed officers for were male participate only in R. 332, with Lt. and the disciplined block 335, Phillips, requested 340. she During Clark a was time Lt. during the Clark for computer access. -4- supervising the refused meeting 3 The record does not disclose the role that Lt. have to favors witness that Phillips gates record did Lt. began Clark the sexual of he access3 female the 30. 2009, cell which or 313. certain at her fun assigned 197-98. officer in sexual was 249, perform to R. the reported made computer acknowledges her all disciplinary and however, Clark 12, the male She, meeting. April a touch Phillips, denied as R. did subjected 2008 breaks. and 85. conduct. and such Lt. She not her, the matter. basis. recall Clark at with trained officers opening her daily did Id. laughed conversation other a favors. who cannot Phillips investigate take to this to instances of asked she to ability in stupid which afforded failed Clark Lt. sexual superiors, Clark's her Although, conversation, perform to Phillips, the Id. first to sign with the Phillips might superintendent. called her back Lt. Phillips she was it to Jail the and be After his office. visibly to see write what officials, incident Clark 335. to was going ... R. and subsequently happens." issued a to R. 336. different to R. night happy with her work and her new supervisor. Officer attests Tiffany that Lt. Finn, Phillips experienced negative officer. 198. Jail, loss R. Lt. of composure, insubordination. discipline for of to was and repeatedly 320-329. sex or during that The Jail where she that warned R. the Jail, she too as an year employment at the disciplined for subordinates, and and these race-based behavior. and first to was 112. Clark Clark's of 2009, at her try investigated 333-34. 86, heard complained 17, shift R. statements None "just coworkers abused during derogatory R. Clark's verbally treatment Prior Phillips one to Clark April team. the he security on he meeting, that her After of Clark, second Clark challenged director Clark the told recommendation a transferred He and released During Id. up Jail's Phillips Id. angry. him the transferred Lt. instances involved 315. B. Alleged Disparate Treatment Based on Race Clark on [of account the also of jail] evidence occasions of on alleges being is a 90% that white she was received female (APPROX.) discrimination, which she because black." Clark treated -5- unfavorable R. treatment the "racial 9-10, 196, has provided less favorably a make 199. As list than up of black female officers, including two instances in which she was "written up" for misconduct but black female officers were not.4 R. 199. She was forced her also to sergeant cites racial attend defensive with a able to participate discrimination tactics physician's as training note stating in excessive exercise. R. the reason after that she presenting she was not complaint of 9. C. Exhaustion of Remedies WTRJA claims harassment employee. or R. Personnel that other 31, 60, harassment and stating encouraged time If of the if R. 46. employees make appropriate claims in She alleges that descriptions against excerpt an handbook another from its defining sexual it clear that sexual to such be action the harassment offender, behavior resolved by is notify is the repeated, his or her are at the offensive. employee the or employee supervisor or officials. that positions 112, submitted experience cannot immediately behavior.5 R. 4 who offensive Clark a that: situation should filed conduct Procedure occurrence, the other to WTRJA has and Employees never objectionable 70. Policy Clark of she notified command no about less than five Lieutenant Jail Phillips's 313. there were actually six instances, reference the race of but only two of her the other officers. 5 The record reflects that Clark notified a sergeant and corporal about the October that the Jail's Administration 2008 meeting Director investigated with of Lt. Phillips, Security the April 12, 2009, and R. 313, and Director of meeting, R. 333. Clark November sex, 20, a charge 2009, alleging R. an Amended retaliation. 35. WTRJA 2009, and December 2010. of R. 1, 244. dismissal On her II. Under Rule summary as judgment as "material" Anderson to a jury granted fact law." it might could EEOC R. and of R. U.S. 2010, sent of if alleging age, and charge September Clark the Civil "there movant Civ. 242, a Clark initial on race, a 20, notice STANDARD the if the on 38. the affect return basis 13, charge only only of Rules Fed. 477 EEOC P. is is no A of verdict for A "is the fact the (1986). evidence genuine entitled 56(a). outcome 248 Procedure, to is case. dispute such that non-moving Id. party responsibility motion," material (1986). is sue. Federal of if the JUDGMENT "genuine" reasonable of the be amended to fact a its right the disability, notice 2011, Lobby, material The 3, on the Discrimination sex, the Liberty of party." of with September of received material matter only v. of should any On race, SUMMARY 56 judgment dispute on February and of discrimination Charge based R. discrimination 247-50. discrimination on of disability. and filed filed seeking of and fact. This summary informing the demonstrating Celotex burden "may district the Corp. be judgment of Catrett, discharged -7- court absence v. "bears by of a the the basis genuine 477 U.S. initial for dispute 317, 323 'showing' that is, pointing out evidence to the movant to the support makes depositions, for specific must favorable 763 F.2d with view to at Herbert, 563 evidence is of law," Consol. the Coin must Caterers 477 III. treatment that Phillips as has harassment under U.S. (explaining that in at F.3d is Am. or by the on file, issue Although the light Fashions, summary Arms most Inc., judgment Moreover, prevail 545 the Int'l. if as judgment. 542, required a v. "the matter O'Connor (4th Cir. v. 251-52). Sexual construed after Title Indus., defeat party must summary If 325. genuine a in 2009). 56 claim Burlington at 1995) DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS began a is Floor evidence," grant of admissions and Terry's Cir. absence Id. omitted). Corp., A. Court there whole one an affidavits, and "cannot (4th that case." own that see of 82 one-sided Court her a nonmovant 78, (quoting Anderson, The as is nonmoving party (quotations scintilla F.3d so showing nonmovant, the the interrogatories, record there party's and by 324 the 610, a showing, to at the merely a facts Id. court that nonmoving pleadings answers trial." Court the such "to go beyond the designate district Inc. the Clark's the for VII Harassment Claim of v. allegations October hostile the work Civil Ellerth, absence of -8- a 2008 of unfavorable meeting with environment Rights 524 tangible Act U.S. of sexual 1964. 724, employment Lt. See 753-54 action resulting sexual from a plaintiff's an demands, categorized Virginia, hostile as for work a hostile 172, opportunities, evidence 175 extra among WTRJA for a (4th work has Cir. and 1998) supervisor's is (examining her she that in v. whether threatened professional refused Clark find properly Reinhold supervisor after to a claim)/ denied demonstrated jury to harassment where things, reasonable submit environment existed other to sexual work environment with advances). action F.3d 151 claimant refusal his lacks her sexual sufficient favor on this claim. Before claim, to the examining Court establish file a the alleged of 2000e-5(e)(1); & n.3 claim. Rights alleged with that possesses "deferral her EEOC on first November actionable VII meaning EEOC the to § that occurred -9- may rely claimants must within Coll., ... which 300 300 Clark's between 400, 405 to file on Human relief seek from" makes Virginia Clark male claim January of U.S.C. days Council a days 42 F.3d 2000e-5(e)(1)). from 300 See have Virginia harassment harassment Clark VII practice. practices, alleging that the claimants U.S.C. sexual conduct Title Lynchburg "authority 2009, conduct what with because (quoting charge 20, v. employment state") on Clark's Virginia, Title EEOC the of employment Edelman the unlawful In discrimination (explaining charge merits determine unlawful § a must the charge the filed supervisor covered 25, a 2009, any and November 20, 2009. The October 2008 falls outside Opinion and that it could statute read of in light separate employment 101, permits before work the limitations at Supp. 2d Nat'l As as an as See Summary facts extend 26, in the in 2012, concluded Judgment the on record, suggested to in that October 536 U.S. the 2008 Edwards Va. one v. 2011); -10- v. 2008 part a hostile the statute of 118; Gilliam, 474 consider Lt. to of Clark's acts and Murphy-Brown, v. days the related Lewis doctrine 300 of 536 to claim, unitary Morgan, contributing at series 'unlawful than part Court as a violation within sufficiently comprise (E.D. conduct harassment be Corp. as of an occurred more charge as for composed constitute occurred October must to EEOC long is continuing that Morgan, practice." 621 Phillips January Clark, Passenger the acts filed sexual period 607, such, Accordingly, "so Lt. nevertheless the claim R.R. environment environment employment claim might its for to collectively claim behavior meeting because favorable consider period. limitations 2008 to 141. Phillips's work that plaintiff work Court Motion environment (2002). environment hostile F.2d work practice.'" courts the In and continuing violation doctrine. acts 117 41, grounds most Clark window. WTRJA's harassment hostile between that NO. grant under the "A U.S. not sexual incident ECF limitations the Clark's of Order, meeting to hostile within the ongoing October unlawful L.L.C., Norfolk the S. 760 F. Corp., 271 F. Supp. WTRJA's 2008 2d contention event November As that 807, to 20, that for has provided It temper Lt. is attempting of which after she it her time shortly harassment supervision. occurred for a on him Court agrees linking within break medical at the the code Clark the 300 with October days within the evidence linking it a of on three Lt. when for an inmate was also though the period, lost who other She refused his officers alleges Lt. has be access received that such Phillips's aforementioned Clark temper appeared to computer under her conduct presented no 2008 meeting. occasions -11- he lost incidents Phillips denied time 6 The record also indicates that Lt. infractions when conduct accused Other as Clark Phillips subsequently time the October because Lt. 2009. events serve harassing that a her might conduct 12, time that limitations to and identify that alleged employment. during assuming 2008 April even commencing Even on to period record, Clark and Jail constant difficult which include seizure.6 after was a is October from report occurred safety The evidence limitations dates complains a it reprimanding called experiencing during 2003). lacks Phillips's to request she the evident while of Clark's Va. that matter, within "anchors" his Clark harassment initial occurred occurred. (E.D. 2009. an not 812 Phillips counseled Clark for in November 2008. R. 332. To show period is extends that part into demonstrate Supp. 2d F.3d 321, of 328 Circuit's (5th conclusion of employment were perpetrated period harassment claim. 536 The U.S. same complains. this to verbal nature subsequently October speculation because A judgment she on and Yet, Court affirmed the same and hostile must 760 F. 586 Passenger the involve[d] pre- that Comm'n, Railroad relatively managers" of that abuse Lt. refused Eighth the same frequently, and post-limitations work of 2008 environment entirely denial of Indeed, the only Clark's subsequent cannot which frequently incident is was of declaration Clark and alleged party basis Finn's Phillips his conduct Phillips October propositioned to the Lt. Officer the verbal that the National occurred Edwards, Transp. "incidents committed incident nonmoving where part experienced. 2008 In Miss. practice plaintiff related." v. Supreme same contends abuse, the are "the limitations 120-21. allegedly from the person contention. Phillips the that was at Clark 2009). actions, by acts the employment period, Stewart Cir. outside unlawful separate Morgan, type her single (quoting v. occurring limitations the 621 Corporation a the that at harassment subjected corroborates in which different privileges thing Lt. in that she linking the treatment retaliating Clark is against her her advance. defeat speculation -12- a and motion for conclusory summary statements alone. v. Causey v. Hardy, 769 Balog, F.2d failed to other 213, harassment related, must determine under the Title (2) was work VII for that in "(1) the working a to F.3d 241-42 234, welcome the Lt. to she demonstrate because her harassment (4) was sex, and the sufficiently meeting could find as part the of Court WTRJA liable suffered allegedly environment within unwelcome; (3) pervasive that some First It is the within the Court sufficiently severe for imputing Union she or not harassment abusive Nat'l that Bank, Clark because suffered statutory need the 'sex' ; an However, the her exists clear treatment plaintiff create basis v. a of that to Smith treatment. claim, ^because 2008). that supervision has meeting are Beale Clark Accordingly, harassed or Cir. Phillips's of was Phillips's Because 2008 2008 jury she work was employer." (4th the 1998); period. hostile and 1985). claim. harassment severe environment; Cir. complains reasonable harassment liability failed the that sufficiently she consider limitations succeed show: a {4th October environment whether statute of To must hostile 802 Cir. the which cannot 795, (4th that of Court F.3d 214 demonstrate the Clark's 162 did pervasive or hostile work not she has under Lt. time-frame address 202 whether imputable was the to WTRJA. Remarks need and not sexually be conduct comprising explicit or -13- a specifically environment directed at the plaintiff to Bank, F.3d 202 be women can language her rarely 533 an that of and for maliciously work women 1999) ("It assaults and expressions sex-based animus desire."). A raises inference been the the treatment. The that target First denying at the her of of her in Jail that an female support allegation. Officer this Finn's for" a culture she Other is the -14- has than only in Cir. and language 189 F.3d that more misdirected the like sexual evidence would or discriminatory at have 242. consists her Although which provided Clark's not that she calling manner. an presence Sheahan, complains privileges, recruits, declaration F.3d of employees sexist present sex, as (4th male sounded than her 202 334 difference conduct Clark overzealous propositioned no rather Bank, which tolerated v. epithets offensive certain Smith status advances."); 326, though Nat7! remarks hostile where nevertheless "but as the plaintiff's makes the must Union Nat'l conduct Phillips yelling plaintiff demean sexual even plaintiff); by F.3d in scorn" [supervisor's] of 630 Union is environment special Cir. that First consumed environment Haqerstown, at VII. unwanted denigrated directed (7th work Title environment hostile out under contains City (finding "singled 529, v. ("A ridicule, that Mosby-Grant 2010) 242 create environment was at intimidate, that used actionable Clark no own Lt. stupid, male supporting of and alleges superiors evidence to statements, evidence that Clark has little of submitted. support sex. for Officer Pam when abuse. when I 197-98. nothing was motivated 142 & on n.9 how her of Officer the Finn Phillips evidence October 30, statements Lt. Lt. other difficulty Lt. 2007, to male Phillips because See with me verbal through same way jail. The is Gilliam, to a her F.3d at specifics differently statements is woman, behavior 474 lacking treat conclusory This Finn Phillips's testimony race that particularly race in treatment adverse true of year. hand, controlling toward men Phillips and has demonstrated his temper women received a his and female subordinates. a temper Notice -15- of It Letter losing and that and behaving alike. for received the the Lt. Phillips's a felt threatened going me Officer that witness treatment). the was at women. plaintiff's that spoke constant she that toward after that was year. plaintiff's fact manner provides she felt to treated suggests on professional what fact subsided has abuse how She she working a that used adverse WTRJA, 2008, animus how due had for statement support to him the (explaining to motived light than by the about Phillips. started lasted supervisor failed Lt. understood first this declaration that [sic] regards Phillips] Other in alot around I [Lt. mistreatment R. in was ... because contention me around times she Finn's states: with uncomfortable several Officer Clark's Finn talked But has of Intent 320. to in a submitted Warning making R. Lt. on derogatory On July Suspend 14, from Duty On Without February Intent and to Pay 4, not demonstrating adverse F.3d evidence, a case in was are other than existed the reasonable the evidence inference of support Having has her argued hostile thoroughly than a Accordingly, that work reviewed scintilla WTRJA is of Jail. in for e.g., Clark's evidence environment sexual the the record, evidence sexual to in summary harassment -16- that she is no at an 142. raise a can of judgment a treated woman. insufficient harassment claim. 630 such have support and contains not Court record Moby-Grant, to is 315. plaintiff's F.3d that was explicit 474 would fact a fails presented the with case Gilliam, Jail's R. the of supervisor sex. with this Phillips Letter Phillips presented that 322-23. the Lt. statements, See has entitled hostile work environment 328. See, own Lt. second with infer sex. record in an abusive manner but WTRJA jury, could Clark that R. R. medical phone men. a Clark's at a Jail's contaminated women, the supervisor. hostility based on which because Rather, the the for exhibiting to environment Clark whom male received with workplace 334. Moreover, of his on a treatment at arguing references derogatory more both at Phillips temper disciplined is Lt. for his superintendent, This yelling 2009, Suspend losing never for to claim. identify no this claim. on Clark's B. Racial Discrimination Claim In about its Clark's race-based denied motion, Clark cannot complains was individual or § motion VII central claims with favorably because In the Douglas v. Aikens, all the a direct basis of protected 460 480, 485 U.S. evidence race, burden-shifting 411 employer U.S. (4th she Cir. 802 Jail failed at 26-27. and of but to With argues which she against any terms, 551 42 297, 300 the employment discrimination the U.S. 715 where plaintiff 711, that must she See -17- under v. Bd. plaintiff McDonnell Miles Under a Serv. discriminated proceed (1973); 2005). was Postal less (1983). claims, F.3d U.S.C. discrimination, of treated conditions, race. Ltd., trait. framework. 792, for agrees. of theory VII case it discriminate Grp., doubt the treatment because the at 41 compensation, Title treatment no Green, F.3d of disparate presented on in of facie shortcoming the "to Calvert Regardless whether v. unlawful v. No. this expressed because The Court employment" Jones ECF that his prima judgment remedies to a Court employment claim. demonstrate of question Governors WTRJA respect 2009). is her summary her it the establish during in makes 2000e-2(a)(1); Cir. Order, racially motivated. privileges (4th to for deficiencies Title and discrimination instant that Opinion ability WTRJA's identify the prior the McDonnell has against McDonnell Douglas Dell, of Corp. Inc., 429 Douglas, the plaintiff has the discrimination. F.3d 289, must 294 burden Merritt (4th provide a shifts to pretextual plaintiff's the of the and that Inc., demonstrate U.S. the of plaintiff fails necessarily question To of (2) she a elements: suffered the reason is the cause treatment was (2000), and the of action, the Sanderson the for burden v. victim Plumbing plaintiff must intentional by a 601 294. A elements creating a she duties expectations at case present is adverse legitimate (4) defendant the plaintiff was 601 proffered the disparate the facie must her and job so, of F.3d of at a triable prima issue facie on the discrimination. (1) an that the reason does Merritt, of prima Clark it case Inc., Reeves 153 short performing action; "whether establish falls establish following to Line, discrimination every facie succeeds, If prove evidence, intentional discrimination, Id. to In 133, the Freight she discrimination preponderance case is prima non-discriminatory discrimination," 530 who If prohibited Id. a Dominion 2010). plaintiff question intentional Prods., Old treatment. treatment. ultimate establishing legitimate adverse is v. Cir. plaintiff's back of a the member level time of situated -18- disparate-treatment evidence of employment at similarly a of demonstrating a protected action; that the met (3) the class; she was her employer's adverse employment employees outside the protected class BFI Waste Servs., LLC, has failed Clark received more 375 F.3d 288 to (4th Cir. establish a v. case of facie any First, the treatment being disciplined when black officers were not, training after permitted to of a Title actions to Clark effect on Cir. a has see to Page failed to v. that no to detrimental classify v. to as and not were effect 227, 233 intend conduct conduct the of that upon of slights the which the action, merely (4th (4th Cir. Title she VII) . suffered of complains Fourth Circuit actions. Maryland Department of For Health or employment Clark employment a 256 conditions adverse -19- these "interlocutory effect on not 253, proscriptions that of detrimental F.3d F.2d context employment 178 immediate the any being computer the significant 645 did not in For adverse Goldin, demonstrate the claim. female tactics denied action employment v. complains. note, and being some Bolger, within similar Prince-Garrison her Congress having Moreover, substantially of an had Boone fall of she defensive physician's treatment they which attend employment level conditions significant employment. in that decisions declined the to request, adverse discomfort." conditions" Clark to (explaining mediate an a upon disparate show 1999); 1981) had VII the "trivial breaks to rise must forced presenting take access amounts being of White 2004). prima treatment See for of the treatment. discrimination none of favorable her is has example, and Mental Hygiene, 371 Circuit F. held App'x. that with office with an supervisors, Richland 2002), the employer failed to classroom key employment of she conditions she her a a because her she has not she was presenting a She claims complete forced to same note Riddick to postpone or importantly, v. 616 (4th judgment did not not her shown for an classroom, access amount to a to adverse the that trivial Cri. conduct impact on failed to demonstrate of which the that situated her Riddick was Clark, that -20- after activity. granted an extension Jail presentation has complains training physical however, the non-white Clark tactics restricting upon Clark complains treatment. defensive Clark not 615, denied similarly claim training do undesirable a meetings action under Title VII. favorable training. race and has that that Officer Miranda the an than she attend physician's Riddick's More more [plaintiff] Richardson In summary to Fourth counseling, App'x the actions demonstrated Officer note. of more F. has employment several received employees that for Clark employment, suffered an adverse 52 actions had provide attend computer, Because to the insubordination, affirmed these 2009), actions." plaintiff new complains of Second, to Circuit actions. which to District, assigned give for directions School Cir. failure employment Fourth that (4th reprimands and adverse County 353 "employer's supplies, constitute 351, provided does not provide allowed Officer of no a physician's evidence to substantiate her allegation that Officer Riddick received an extension. Clark also disciplined more Specifically, doors She in written up alleges blocks that respectively. the Id. and Poyner has presented F4 Clark no documentation for November 21, 2008, unsatisfactory opening Officer of cell Nichols of reprimand counseling. R. and doors. received is of a 318. doors more R. Officer safety than in on not and Fl,7 Nichols and she statements, the from other Jail hand, officials These materials show 2009, Clark counseled relation to 339-40. of cell Accordingly, own 199. were Officer her 318, severe opening R. F4 violations, letter a Poyner when was officers. for blocks WTRJA, 12, in up she authorization. affidavits April which female cell occurred. in written indicate other performance unauthorized opening in allegations. and block and alleged even Clark's was without not evidence, has on Cl does that to she conduct demonstrating corresponding black Nichols these they instances than and same committed provided two that Officer for of harshly she cell claims complains block form the the On was that unauthorized May reprimand 2008, for A the F4. R. of punishment than discloses that record 337. 12, letter 7 Clark maintains that cell block Fl has the same security status as Cl. -21- Officer Nichols did not receive more favorable treatment than Clark. WTRJA Poyner. the has no Moreover, Jail on throughout Officer June her record 15, employment Officer doors, failed were has similarly infractions. that Officer Poyner Succinctly disparate "Such Clark has employment received more prima facie or that she time to for are Officer their present block Poyner any evidence infraction. to prove than her instances own 142. she F.3d at suffered situated has disparate of statements. to she not respective 474 that race-based and has cell insufficient Gilliam, similarly Fl at employee Clark the of more treatment, Because that attempts alone, non-probationary opened failed nothing claim." favorable case has Officer probationary Jail. the demonstrated action a allegedly Clark with VII not the at standing Title was involving a committed the alleged put, assertions, became demonstrate Clark treatment actionable with situated Indeed, incident Clark Poyner to an Poyner 2009. indicated when she of sustain an Because an adverse non-white officers failed to treatment establish under a Title VII. If the hostile Court work environment reason namely, create a interprets genuine she Clark claim, has not dispute over it as would provided whether -22- alleging fail sufficient her adverse a race-based for the same evidence to treatment was because of race. race-based evidence race; To hostile that survive work the a for environment harassment and (3) conditions of employment Spriqgs Diamond was sufficiently v. motion Auto claim, "(1) severe and summary are must an devoid (2) pervasive create 242 Clark unwelcome; or Glass, judgment to abusive F.3d 179, on a present based alter on the atmosphere." 183-84 (4th Cir. 2001). Clark's contention As that previously that race block she submissions attend the alleged explained, motived doors Affairs her the without Clark discipline tactics Burdine, 450 facie case prima has failed or 248, the for See race. inference opening cell that Tex. (1981) the on her requirement Jail's 254 raises based raise to the supporting was received training. U.S. facts treatment she authorization defensive v. adverse of Pep't of Comty. (explaining inference of that unlawful discrimination). She was has denied race. She officers black black also computer has on and and failed four C six leadership on leadership on Team white A a and list and A officers white C provide access submitted the to Team team sufficient regular showing Team. officers consisted breaks the on C worked of consisted -23- two of It on black one and A of her that that Team. and of twelve thirteen Id. officers, black she composition shows Team that because racial 131-34. worked evidence The and one the white officer. Id. Statistics discrimination, facts Cir. and 1 F. however, words, they By Jail's raise current access. degree as to WTRJA Both at R. 316, training schedules 318. may than and Trust, has the be chance; 977, pursuant more the probationary employees computer access F.3d at -24- may before this 142 have n.9. the held employment. to standard computer in completed their break Officer Finn's given other Clark, failure & whom have Although Jail that who of full granted flexibility officers. (1988)). of that, other (quoting affidavits Clark's afforded in a substantial 995 both officers Int'l reveal causation.'") not teams' Tech. they during are (4th ("Statistics, Jail Similarly, 474 v. explain probationary See Gilliam, of 456 her sufficiently the that motivated. out submitted employees indicates 450, linking U.S. suggests declaration surrounding that 487 declaration her the F.3d superintendents, affidavits probationary rule be employment 1998) extent must of Barnett Va. inference former positions practice, the Bank 33 See (E.D. to an on evidence only ... and Ball, no 579. proof depends treatment. disparities Worth v. provided 572, a contrast, 315-319. their such Fort official Carter probative of provide usefulness her 2d ^statistical Watson v. R. has to Supp. are disparity that Clark composition Inc., their circumstances. 1994). racial but can was nothing in racially In little spite more treatment she treatment was an discrimination presented the as a In to showing and which at that her rather of than the as a race-based discrimination. race. Title VII 220, 228 (4th employees Hawkins "The critical Otherwise, not in the civility Inc., of . 56 the the burden at addition to WTRJA product has of her command-structured O'Connor, the law code, 56 Clark's F.3d at F.3d at WTRJA evidence, on . Ziske is it disputes F.3d sufficient . of nor 203 context supervisors of Clark is claim for 545. CONCLUSION 2008), legally nature her race-based in the a 318. See O'Connor, personality PepsiCo, for a Cir. from v. need is R. matter her bear was that that evidence, in and establish Moreover, employee IV. to Clark's Jail, reveals will 322. in one-sided judgment she the the to to behind inference record treatment her an essential U.S. 477 at sufficient on probationary light entitled a' deficiencies evidence organization 545. claim support The amount motivations employed motivated. element Celotex, identifying status make submissions the while adequately racially of See to Clark's about experienced to existence volume, conjecture fail failed trial. their than accordingly, has of [a 281 evidence could -25- not Mineta, designed with 274, motion v. of for their (4th 547 to F.3d protect superiors, Cir. 2000). discrimination summary evaluate is judgment]. employees of a different Id. at race 282. treatment internal "[t]he [or the at Court Jail a security that evidence 226. Clark has failed was based on must was has to entitled to summary the the the fail a hostile gender" satisfy in as matter experienced to conclude Ziske, that law, 547 Because her element of with abusive, burden. demonstrating a and race. this lawsuit." concerned jury or a Clark primarily reasonable her to that of but that F.3d Clark treatment of both her and WTRJA is judgment. ECF No. Opinion Court to doubt times evidence foregoing Summary Judgment, of at prospect protected trait an essential claims This was due no the setting allow present a has failed claims her For without The her mistreatment at gender] and reasons, 44, is Second Motion for GRANTED. Order shall matter, this WTRJA's and constitute the Clerk the is final judgment DIRECTED to close case. The Clerk is further DIRECTED Opinion and Order to Clark and counsel IT IS SO to a copy of this MAGISTRATE JUDGE for WTRJA. ORDERED. UNITED Norfolk, mail Virginia May °t , 2012 -26- STATES
]]>
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.
