Marquez v. The City of Opa-Locka, Florida, No. 1:2017cv22707 - Document 26 (S.D. Fla. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER Granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 3/29/2019. See attached document for full details. (jw)

Download PDF

Marquez v. The City of Opa-Locka, Florida Doc. 26 Case 1:17-cv-22707-JLK Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2019 Page 1 of 6 U N ITED STA TE S D ISTR ICT CO UR T SO UT H ERN D ISTR ICT O F FLO RID A M IAM IDIVISION CA SE NO . 17-22707-CV -K1N G SHARON M ARQUEZ, Plaintiff, V S. THE CITY O F O PA -LO CK A , Florida, Defendant. ORDER GRANTING M OTION FOR SUM M ARY JUDGM ENT TH IS M A TTER com esbefore the Courtupon the Defendant'sM otion for Sum m ary Judgment(DE 15)filedonFebruary8,2019. TheCourtlikewisereviewedthePlaintifps Response(DE 20)fledonM arch3,2019,towhichtheDefendantReplied(DE 24)onM arch 14,2019. The D efendantm oves forSum m ary Judgem enton allcounts. A ftercareful consideration,theCoul'tfindsthatSumm ary Judgmentiswarranted. 1. BACKGROUND ThePlaintiff,SharonM arquez(tiplaintiff')filedtheinstantmatteragainstDefendant CityofOpa-Locka(çiDefendant'')seekingtorecoverdamagesforemploymentdiscrimination she allegedly suffered. The PlaintiffisH ispanic. She com m eneed em ploym entw ith the City on Decem ber 10,2007 asa code enforcem entofticer.The Plaintiff alleges thata11otherem ployees in her departm entw ere A frican-A m erican. ln June 2014,Plaintifftiled a charge ofethnic discrim ination with theEEOC alleging thatshe wasbeing harassed by theCity'scode enforcem entdirectorG regory D ays. During the pendency ofthatclaim , on O ctober31,2015, Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:17-cv-22707-JLK Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2019 Page 2 of 6 the Plaintiffw asterm inated. The only reason stated wasthatthe term inatton w as i;a resultof budgetaryconstraints.''Atthattime,noalternativejobwasofferedtothePlaintiff.On December30,2015,theCitypostedajobopeningforacodeenforcementofficerposition dûnightsand weekends.'' Shortly thereafter,on January 20, 2016,Defendantrehired Plaintifffor thesam eposition. On June20,2016,Plaintifftqied asecond ChargeofDiscrim ination with the EEOC with respecttotheOctober30,20lsterm ination.A Rightto Sue letterwasissued. The plaintiffhasneversigned an em ploymentagreem entwith the City and rem ainsem ployed until today. II. LEG A L STA N DA R D kssummaryjudgmentisappropriatewherethepleadingsandsupportingmaterials establish thatthereisno genuineissueasto any materialfatand thatthem ovingpal'ty isentitled tojudgmentasamatteroflaw.''CelotexCorp.v.Catrett,477U.S.317,322 (1986);Fed.R.Civ. P.56(a).Summaryjudgment(iisproperlyregardednotasadisfavoredproceduralshortcut,but ratheras an integralpa14 ofthe FederalRulesasa whole, which aredesignedtosecurethejust, speedyg,)andinexpensivedeterminationofevery action.''Pacev.Capobianco,283F.3d 1275, 1284(11thCir.2002).Summaryjudgmentisappropriateunlessthereisagenuineissueoffact fortrial.Ageev.Porter,216F.App'x837,840(11thCir.2007).idF'orfactualissuestobe considered genuine,they musthavearealbasisin therecord.''M i zev.Jeffèrson(7/yBd.of Educ.,93F.3d739,742(11thCir.1996).lnopposingamotionforsummaryjudgment,the nonmovingparty dimustshow specificfactsto supportthatthere isagenuine dispute.''Anderson v.LibertyLobby,Inc.,477U.S.242,248(1986).Thenonmovingpartymaynotrelyonthe pleadings,butratherm ustdemonstratea genuine issuefortrialthrough aftsdavits, depositions, interrogatory answ ers, and adm issions,Celotex,477 U .S.323-24. The existence ofa ûlm ere 2 Case 1:17-cv-22707-JLK Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2019 Page 3 of 6 scintilla''ofevidence in supportofthe nonmoving party'sposition isinsuftscient;theremustbe evidenceon which thefinderoffactcould reasonably find forthe moving party.Nat1Cas.Co. v.Pickens,582F.App'x839,840-41(11thCir.2014)(quoting Walkerv.Darby,911F.2d 1573, 1577(11thCir,1990)). 111. D ISCU SSIO N A . C ountI- T erm ination from public em ploym entw ithoutdue process The Plaintiffclaim s thatshe w asvested w ith a property interestin continued em ploym ent by the City'sPersonnelRules,enacted by ordinanceNo.07-03,upon herhire in 2007 into the City's classitied service. She com plainsthatthe City deprived ofher em ploym entw ithoutany due process of1aw and argues thatshe had an expectation ofcontinuing em ploym ent. TheDefendantmovesforsummaryjudgmenton thiscountarguingthattheplaintiff cannotestablish the tirstelem entofa proceduraldue process claim - deprivation ofa constitutionally-protected liberty orproperty interest. The Defendantalso arguesthateven ifshe could establish adeprivation ofproperty interest,theproceduraldueproeessclaim failsbeeause the Plaintiffhad an adequate post-deprivation rem edy available underFlorida law . The Plaintiff could havechallenged herterm ination underFlorida law,butfailed to do so. The Defendant contendsthattheCityisentitledtojudgmentonthisissue.Inresponse,thePlaintiff acknow ledgesthatshe never signed an em ploym entcontractor any w ritten agreem entw ith the city regarding herem ploym ent. The Plaintiffclaim s,how ever,thatthe City elim inated its PersonnelBoard by the tim e she w asterm inated,w hich lef4herw ithoutherrightto appeal. t$gA)j1983claim allegingadenialofproeeduraldueprocessrequiresproofofthree elements:(1)adeprivationofaconstitutionally-protectedlibertyorproperty interest;(2)state action;and(3)constitutionally gjinadequateprocess.''JR.v.Hansen,803F.3d 1315,1320 Case 1:17-cv-22707-JLK Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2019 Page 4 of 6 (11thCir.2015);Grayden v.Rhodes,345F.3d 1225,1232(11th Cir.2003).ThePlaintiffcannot establish the firstelem entofa proceduraldue process claim - thatis a deprivation ofa constitutionallyprotected liberty orproperty interest. ThePlaintifffailsto provideany competentevidenceto supporthercontention thatshehad an expectation ofcontinuedpublic employment. ThePlaintiffsemploym entwas'iatwill''and she had no legitim ateclaim to entitlem entofcontinued em ploym entatthe City w hen she w asterm inated. M oreover,although the PersonnelBoard had been abolished,the Plaintiffdid notchallenge herterm ination in state court,which wasavailable to herto pursue atthe tim e. G iven the foregoing,the D efendantis entitled to Sum mary Judgm enton thisCount. B, C ountll,111,IV - R etaliatory D ischarge ThePlaintiffnextclaimsthatherterm ination in October2015 wasin retaliation forfiling a claim ofethnicdiscrim ination withtheEEOC in 2014. ThePlaintiffalso allegesthatshe was retaliated againstin violation ofTitle V1Iw hen she w as denied her civilservice rightto be called back to the position and instead replaced w ith a new hire and when she w as rehired on January 25,2016 to a purportedly low erposition w ithoutrestoration ofseniority oraccrued benefits. ln support,thePlaintiffstates,withoutfactualsupport,thatin lightofthe City'simm ediate filing of herposition atahighersalary herterminationwaspretextual.TheDefendantcountersthatthe Plaintiff'sretaliation claim failsbecausethePlaintifflacksevidenceofcausation.TheCourt agrees. k'ToestablishaprimafaciecaseofretaliationunderTitleVlIgandtheFCRAj,a plaintiffmustdemonstrate:(l)thatheengagedinstatutorilyprotected activity;(2)thathe sufferedadverseemploymentaction;and(3)thattheadverseemploymentactionwas causally related to the protected activity.''Harper v.Blockbuster Entm ' tCorp., 139 F.3d Case 1:17-cv-22707-JLK Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2019 Page 5 of 6 1385,1388(11thCir.1998). Upon review ofthe pleadings,the Plaintifffails to presentany evidence to supportthat theadverseemploymentaction(hertermination)wascausallyrelatedtoherprotectedactivity (filingtheEEOC claim).ThefilingoftheEEOC claim wasinJune2014andshewas term inated in O ctober2015. The lack oftem poralproxim ity is fatalto Plaintiff'sclaim . M oreover,thePlaintifffailed to provideany evidenceto supporthercontentionsthatherposition wasfilledatahighersalary. lntheabsenceofany evidencelinkingthePlaintiff'sterminationto herprotected activity m ore than 15 monthsearlier,theDefendantarguesthatthey are entitled to judgmentwithrespecttothesecounts. C . CountV - Em ploym entD iscrim ination under Florida CivilRightsA ct Finally,the Plaintiffclaim s thatherterm ination violated the Florida CivilRights Actof 1992,which prohibitsan em ployerfrom discrim inating againstan em ployee w ho filed a charge ofdiscrim ination. The D efendantm ovesto dism iss this counton the basisthatthisclaim isa regurgitation ofthePlaintiff'sCount11retaliation claim .Furthermore,the Defendantarguesthat CountV should failbecause the Plaintifffailed to provide any substantive evidence regarding sim ilarly situated em ployeesw ho w ere allegedly treated m ore favorably than she was. The Courtagrees. The Plaintifffailed to provide any evidence thatshow sthatherterm ination w as discrim inatory orpretextforunlawfulretaliation. The Plaintifftestified thatshe w as notthe only person thatwasterm inated in October2016. W hen asked why shebelievedthatshewasfired forreasonsotherthanthebudget,shesaidthatacolleaguehadsentherapivtureofajobposting forherposition,shortly after she w asterm inated. The C ity's attorney asked herto provide the Case 1:17-cv-22707-JLK Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2019 Page 6 of 6 pictureand she said she would look forit. Itdoesnotappearthatshefound thepicture and there isno m ention ofitin the Plaintiff s Response. The uncontroverted evidence dem onstratesthatthe Plaintiffwasterm inated due to budgetary concerns.Thatisanon-retaliatory,legitimatereason unrelated to heralleged protectedactivity. Giventheforegoing,theDefendantisentitledto summaryjudgmentonthis count. IV . C O N CLU SIO N Therefore,itis O R DER ED ,AD JU D G ED ,and D ECR EE D thatD efendantThe City of Opa-Locka'sM otion forSummaryJudgmentand IncorporatedM emorandum ofLaw (DE 15) be,andthesameis,herebyGRANTED.Thismatterisdislnissedwith Prejudice.l D O NE AN D O RD ER ED in Cham bers at the Jam es Law rence K ing Federal Justice Building and United StatesCourthouse,M iam i,Florida,this 29th day ofM arch,2019. t A M ES LA N CE K IN G UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT JU cc: A llCounselofRecord 1A1lthedatessetforthintheCourt'sSchedulingOrder(DE 12),includingthoseforpre-trialconferenceandtrial arehereby cancelled,

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.