Bloodworth v. Parker et al, No. 3:2015cv00031 - Document 31 (S.D. Ga. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. Judgment shall be entered in favor of the Defendants and this case shall be closed. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 2/22/16. (cmr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bloodworth v. Parker et al Doc. 31 ORIGINAL Flr Fn u.s. ilibf co Iis , S l ' l . i- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DI'BLIN DIVISION ltv. 20t6 22 FEB SONJA BLOODWORTH, Plaintiff, crvrl C H A P T , F ' qE PARKER F]LAINE BAILEY, SUSAN COLEY, ANd GLENN and in PITTMAN, rndividually ihai r nf M.1'^a- .hA r'^rrn.'i l € i n i f 4 fr ' t r . r n !: r , i eeys Maml-\are nf .\f a-i j- \7 t- l-ra F i ^d L f rF i- l'\a .\f AcTroN No. 3L5-031 r-i f \/ f'haqf cr- ec.lrcli: :nd fhe CTTY OF CHESTER, GEORGIA, De f endant s ORDER PfainEiff i c i tc crri -d har v=rrnr Council- f ^1.ma? ah^r] F< presentfy law, summary j udgmen! F nrrer f hp p:rkpr f-i f \/ :nd a black female, .rf f-hFqf l-hree Bailey, Susan .)f before the is briefs f hp of of the record counsel, Ca.\r-.yi: f.\rrl. and ci f r.' Glenn discharge. on Defendants' Court Upon consideration and the Fr Co1ey, a claim of discriminatory summary judgment. t.he rel-evant cmnl (Elaine Members Pittman) , asserting case is ("Plaintiff"), Sonja Bloodworth motion The for evidence, the motion for GRANTED. Dockets.Justia.com I. A. BACKGROI'ND Background Factual The Cit.y of Chester has two employment positions to this h - r t - L - r --iL r^ r E L *L IJd.r ^ ^ - i f i - !nL r \ J r . r ^ PU5 crrnorrri cod rccnancil.\'la t-hF fhe 2L, : m:lr Cl erk 1-'l:r.lr rrnon Henley, a time, (Defs.' lawsuit. that female !l rrlark .rf f'haqf f irincr 2013, reeomlhar^-t- a bfack this M.a\/.\r hi of City ati fa. hirinrr:nd On October ITd nddidf-rf ^F hrr F.\? \M:\'^r,\ position the ful1-time lawsuit: Mayor i ^- ^F iff i ^nc : l c,.\ nnqirinne E. i-he i c Parker Aqqiqi-:nr- .tOUnCil-WOman (the air-l' VanesSa named as a defendant Material of n.\ait- r^rhn l-hcqc rq . i t -" who was not St. R.\l- h Charles pl.ainj- r'a.l Cferk and the ar f.rr refevant |ltl 2-4.) Factsl in At the Cit.y Cferk was MeLanie Mccook, a whit.e female. \ Mdc.\.\k h:d Lrcen iyr t-hF n.)qi Ii.rn 6f aif1/ ala1.L f.\? " three monchs. (Mccook Dep. at been the AssisE.ant CiLy Clerk Cij-1/ clcr.k beqan in At contract could ' M.C.)r'ik/q 2011 . the of time Prior to and a substitute em.l.\,'rnerl- uri1-h fhF t.hat/ she had clerk for ci t-1/ .rf the r-haet- aT (Id. ) of her hiring, employment nor become the 5-6.) City Clerk Pl-aint.if f was there in the did not any discussion sign that a she evenL. tshat. Mccook was no The Court's citation to Defendants' Statement indicates thaL PLalntiff has admitted the stated fact. of Mat.erial Facts (EEg Doc. Nos. 20- 'I .)n.rFr in fh:f je-r i - o n . nv n4s i y v lnaf e ql- / .\f M:j-ari=l (( Fratc q- 10. ) Pl-ainEif f worked 19.5 hours per week and coul-d choose her num <.'hadrr'l (Id. week. ThF a onlw corr'l d rli f f erenr-F chFr-ks 14.) f on ^nd the 1-^ Cicy dannqi id. t-i nn l -h a ^ q rr J re ^ ^ ^u r F r ir p y4 v. hFfwAAn fhAm Dep. at Clerk that rranorrl she March 2014, l\/ v iS '< s i c r n e t .r r r F (McCookDep. at h^ci-i r.vvv+++u)| lifrr (Id. rel not McCook Mccook tofd Aff t-aurrrl har Mccook two women in her err;nf (See here denies had simply get rid she was not Shortly of of these conf l_ict | d CounciL D1 the affeged (Mccook Dep. at for McCook cfaims t.hat. meeting, at which 13, L7; he woufd she tol-d him t.hat (Mccook Dep. thereaf t.er, the issue was brought a City 1c-1a, When the Mayor expressed that Plaintiff, asking c-q no the Mayor about problems bet.ween her and Plaintiff. Parker Dep. at 57-58.) {{ 10.) at 13.) Plaintiff and Dl : clFrk has empLo)ment benefits part, her (-ifv thF bet.ween the Which Of haf job duEies. r-i no reolri l-,^,r'd 23. ) In lQaa onlv day of work. For a',..r avsrs that Dl:inr-iff'c erll'\er-ance aE L3-1-6, 2e.\ is episodes q ?? have similar position. M..a-^.11r several- tense !"r^l.Lad documents began on Plaint.if f 's first. recounts M.,4.\.\L record a fuII-time A-/-.\r-i'l i n.' \ other Al-so, because iE is -1" 11 Both positions { 13.) si on (Id. (( /Td r =l=: aL 29, 4I .) up at the concl-usion time Mccook shared her complaints nea /r. . \ ! t : iu g 1n-l?. Council aT{anl nan Taaidh.t- i^n a t - t -a l . flcn ^h c1-.t-a.l l-La i n 1R. a two weeks notice, resign, imma.lirt-all' mind, T work in Dep., because the Council becoming handl-e it M:fpri week, lcci E':.'l- q she Plaint.iff arLF had rcci.rn:l- \ earned rhe arL .-] Whi Ic i T/l \+t4: { woufd that have ^6i-a ^€ work envj-ronmenE. " she resigned mess" with Dl:inr- the t.he Mayor i f! f ! City would I nu r f P i l iLh raL r ! r " \ a - f ^r fv f ri, au/ul ts/!! (Defs.' in-r-F:qa.l wage as dq , 1 =J I I l-0-12.) hnrrrq same hourly 'rha c-q\ .\F hoped i^n her of let.ter ^t- Mccook expJ-ained that she na:.l- go ahead and l-eave to "a big women t-^ she hr Y r^ St. q 1t did as Fl-i3F of har the r- i 6a never complained about her pay or asked for a raise. Dep. at considered M.ferial nan "'v, f-i l-rr l-ha a Cl-erk on a Eemporary basis. 11 44 both CirCUmSt.ances t-ha (McCook Dep. at M.r-^^k'< from l-ef t a\r I better f ^a' involved; a-i 1-i' cj- :ht- (PI .'s rr.r is was becoming matter City of :l 2,) Ex. 'fhc \ but due to the issues ^^rr^t- himseff. E'nl l nwi it R h.\hrFltar what has become a host.il-e (Parker duties feef /Hanl normal "Under Ied me to q) Mccook daclr rf hear :f (McCook at.tit.ude. nai\ should 2O14. have given I HerrlF\/ nFl1 M.r'.rz,c ^rrt: g. they Dil-l-m:n March poor alleged ^j- that q. -rt- .tn mnrni no. 'I Dil-l-mrn determined a1, f 's Plaint.if about 29.) for 1l 4'7 position the F':.l- s Pl-aintif f \ Ar-r-ordi asked t.he Mayor about. being permanent.fy. n.r f6 pl^infiff (Defs., St. l-l-1a Mrr'^r of dri/l she woul-d be considered rf h^r^rarrar (Pl.'s when the job was posted. 2?-?q \ lacked Plaintiff q4 (P1.'s Dep. at regular that negative making after qt- , nf naA desire caucasian t- ^ Mrt- Ar-i f h- a.\rrn..i to hire an equal (rd. empfoyees. l hia nacirian Pfaintiff various =- testified -i^hl-,/. \'h^hA about Mav.)r that ^f the Mayor ,2 African-Americans the rhaca q cA ^h.\rrf balance n 62.) of t- ha African-Ameri rr-i at- tl 59.) can and al-so testified to hi-re one black person and (P]. ' s Dep. at 32 . ) hir6d commeDts included: rr^ta.l c (Id. in. never t.he Mayor expressed positions. nidd.< M^1'^r/ Pl-aintif f har.l black. Pfaintiff l practices, he upset; "somewhat" she was working the Mayor expressed a desire /l^ :t- the comments because of the <1 F^.,f Lo his hiring I / v v 4 9 + v r r ^^nn. that nan and because the Mayor is r'l a-i 1-rr one white person for '? t- i.rn Eo hire lDrrLor Mccook resigned, to overfook age and negativity With respect -- n.)<i because he felt and made Pfaintiff comments or the environment that fhe The commenEswoul-d come up during 3I-32. ) she was able Mayor's his Cferk experience. comments conversations however, n n' y + g +lr r ! v = i mn !v" Cily fh:f he was looking and that necessary cfaims began a the fecfifiad ) Plaintiff /naf be posted as the ful-1-time someone else )'7 M^\/.\r need to not did Tha Dep. F^r g6y61a1 "these AfriCan- niggas Lh^L' ain,t rLac6 niggas steal"; and 'tI don't know any smart, educated black people and that (Defs.' SL. everything thaL a black man geES has to 90 Lo Lhe white man". of Materlal Facts tl 55.) American of office. f il-l- positions employees to the (Defs . ' i 1 1 i - h a h ri r i f r rn c r n r ^ . . F q s rr ! Y it that of St. Facts f hc Ci f v of to find good employees. Chest.ef 64 . ) fl race was not lrer.arrse was difficuft and outside inside Material that the Mayor testified Neverlhel-ess, both a factor was so small (Parker Dep. aE 33, 42.) Whife qeek fu rh! c r r ^ r n r r 'd l .\f i nnlsf e t +rrlr of Material the Mayor talked Mccook. (Id. q 67.) and rehire more had because she Dep. at 30-31.) excepE perhaps ,4iearrcainr (Id. of at 25, ?n I that l{pn'l He expressed al-l- of job (Parker them agreed say much during F\/ to j-aej-ified the fh:l- (Henley Dep. at 7.) ehF She did the Mayor made the decision based 14.) 201-4, the Material Mayor had been asking and .^f the decision. however, On ,fune St. natr not terminate to to do a better that hiS to the City knowledge. and who did Ms, Henley, did not. agree with upon race. experience The Mayor recalled 1D^a'Lar not. bel-ieve, be trusted Mccook could abOUt he Facts f 66.) he planned them thaL he felt inod membeI.s that Plaintiff /laal and fire, hire members and explained Council "here to f'nrrnr-i L St. Plaintiff, to terminating (Defs.' Ci f rr f ha (Defs.' employment decisions. Prior authority Mayor had the the there" !o lM/'c.\.!L nan Facts Mayor ?1.) f termi.nated As it Mccook on the occasions come back .ai- ?1-?? to ) Al- work, qnmF Pl-aintif turns that but n.1i nj- out, f . the he saw her Mccook had nFrh^nq f hp f 's lermination, week of Pl-aintif he was going that fire to the Mayor explained and wanted her Plaintiff position (Id. at Council .1f was claims and that lawsuit a Dar.cml-rar Clerk as Plaint.if f 's to Facts tltl 72-'73.) by approved of f j-Ied the )nl'q on March 24, because of Thp f he the pursuant Ci f.V inst.ant f-l crk whiEe of of 2015. her She race S 1983. in She dj-scharge was the Mayor' s discriminatory f raal- mFnt a City was hired S l-981 and 42 U.S.C. and that. he lvas acting di qrr^r^f aE 30, was terminated. subsequent t.erminated 42 U.S.C. of Defendants nn this filed she lhat aut.horized the come Background Pl-aint.if f further Plaintiff of Material st. to Michel-l-e charlin, CIerk CiLy (Defs.' Procedural vj-ol-ation female, A white 30.) terminaEion. cfaims the day after and started AssisLant Lhe B. Mccook was rehired Mccook agreed. to (Id. back because he could not have an empty office. 32.) to McCook members of the City to a custom or policy ' Chest.er. motj,on for summary j udgment (-.rrrf p'l :inj-iff d^\re n.)f i.e of the summary judgment moLion and the summary judgmenE rules, of the right opposition, ' Eo and of file the affidavits or consequences of other defauft. materiafs in (Doc. No. offensive P]aintiff a - L s oc l a i m s t h a t E h e M a y o r ' s " d a i l y u s e o f r a c i a l l y bhat was not only for created a work environment unpLeasant language to her as an African and patenLfy offensive Plaintiff, but also hostile (Compl. u 30.) however, states in brief Plaintiff, that she American." (Pl .'s Br. in work environment clain. has not alleged a separate hostife opp'n Eo Defs.' MoE. for summ. J., Doc. No. 26, at 27.) Thus, the Court comments in the context of a ttlea ttou discuss the Mayor's alleged racial work environmenl clain. hastile "? ) Theref.)rF rr- i n,.,vi ^htL!_g-+]!4+_+:tg:. . 1'i. , E 1A ih €i annncir tuif r vyt/v l^.l rp.rr |i rFmFnts -ahlr/ hre a-i 1. fifed l-riaf a.zni -lt-h i'1 Plaintiff - n. r . r v r qt< a)) have been satisfied. n^F^h.r-nr-^ n.\f i .F Fha lqeql iima :nd lnor fnr fhp v. Griffith a responsive Tha red Of brief, f i lina mrrl- i.rn arrri:m\ and m-af ayialq iq rine fdr consideration. SUMMARY .I'DGMENT II. c,1trh.rv i l ,s.Yi Jd m A!r ir r-e tt e i< STANDARD : 1-a :nnrnnri .\]-:'1\r rrl-hara af i< n.r movan! iS Fed. R, civ. P. J r r a. nurf rrisn e YEr r r drio ysr r 'sr r f F u l L tr6r/:\ F:.fs '^^i tt6.al-cri:l arF facts vielv the party, in the Matsushita q.ll if " in of fha1/ and l - a w ." .-.)rr'l affect d subsEantive /, 1 - c 6 lv | | -q o Co. v. mltqj- The CourE must to zenith outcome Anderson v. law. the non-moving Radio Corp., -t drr,., United the States v. Four Parcels of (en banc) punctuation 1991) (inEerna1 475 -i,,^Fi €i -l-\] ^ JuDur]-ralas t 94J. F.2d 1-428, and omitted) . The moving party motion. end favor, u [its] (11th Cir. court, mosL favorable Indus. the j-n Greene and TuscaLoosa Cntys-, Real Prop. citations light Elec. (a? inferences How to ^--- dl.ty Lob!t/, IrLc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Libertv L437 LU under the governing of the suit TT q L- judgmenE as a matter to entitl-ed '4a s D by reference has t.he initial to mat.erial-s on fife, Celotex corp. carry t.his burden v. burden CaErett, of showing che for the the basis 477 v. S. 317, 323 (1986) . depends on who bears the burden of h?^^f .t- f 1..i:l l 'rir yf z i l ^ t - r i . k r 1115 (11rh cir. 1993). n r . . \ !. ) f vv fhe ef se l,r frial l-w v wqyi u T'.\ r^?:1rq - .\F v! & Cil-rr of mav mo\/ant caTa'v fhe initial- -' Inc., F.2d 929 (expfaining Adickes v. and celotex Corp. v. the can Court there 604, 606-08 it- must first its initial burden of showing that. there of material (11'h cir. that. non-movant - and only fhe l'rrrrden of resnonse inj-ti.al - ^c a c r L - f ri1h ^ rr ^af 9 that f o burden. - m-+- 6yi nrnnf |-he ^f mFfh.\d meet -l f:.l- Before response Eo judgment burden in as a hrr trial- is 608. summary friel statement at its inifiaf judgment is indeed a maEeriaf i- ha 1991) are no genuj-ne j-ssues the Id. fhF r^rh nh i When the f ho n.rn-m,,r\r:nf movant evidence "mrr<f, burden, only issue non-movanE the movant presents If Cir. A mere conclusory avoid there (11'" whether the movant has met - t.he movant. carries may to prove of Co1umbus, L20 F,3d 248, 254 Citv cannoL non- the 398 U.S. 144 1]-970) entitled summary judgment. " precludes he^rs i f s if non-movant ,'demonsErat Iing] that is Cl-ark. 929 F.2d at insufficient. the it (per curiam) . 1997) the If and chat Jones v. law. of consider one See Clark v. Coats non-movant's t.he onnosition- matter 11I? in 317 (1986)). 4 7 7 \ 1. S . Catrett, Of is no evidence S.H. Kress & Co., evaluate fact 1d burden ef ement. nedeqqrr\/ io f.he non-movant's case. Cl-ark. F when the non-movant has the burden of nF.--- ! r-r Y I!jd'L t\\/ !J l^nf: Af " case or by showing that movant's ^ f^.'f \/ by of fact non-movant must tailor itS Carried affirmatively .}^acn..\n,.1 r"ri !-h suf f i-cient evidence trial , 2 F,3d at Fitzpatrick of show that the record ignored" by or "come cannot or by repeaEing the pleadings See Morris in the complainc. (11rh Cir. 1981). affidavits the that or as otherwise must additional verdict motion at Id. at deficiency. conclusory or wj-th forward its either was "overfooked a directed carry burden " by relying on contained allegations v. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032, 1033-34 the Rather, aE negated. " non-movanl evidentiary alleged be to motion the movant shows an absence evidence to withstand sufficient The non-movant 1117. soughL If verdict a directed fact, contains movant the based on the trial 1116, on a material evidence evidence fact maEerial the on to withstand non-movant provided must by Federal respond Rul-e of by Civil- Procedure 56. LEGAL ANALYSIS ITI. 42 U, S. C. Community Hosp., secEion provides Inc., a method G r a h a r nv . case, violation Amendment for Plaintiff the federal Wideman v. remedy a substantive vindicating right, f ederal- for Shal-]owford 826 F.2d 1030, 1032 (11'h Cir. but righE.s 1987). "merely elsewhere Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989). asserts of her Equaf Protection Eo a rights. L983 does not create conferred. " In this federal- of deprivations creates 1983 S united a cfaim under S 1983 for right.s states the under the Fourceenth constituLion and the prohibition raciaf aqainst establ-ished discriminatj-on by 42 s 1981.4 u.s.c. Pl-aint.if f claims Defendants that through against her employer, discharge her discriminatory ..anacifies. r-i rr.rri I claims f 1,' ri rrhl-g ^l:i_m nre<<aq thie as well as against cvnl.4jned and of f icialthe differenCe as foffows: -arn:r'i \\Davc^h.l hec hcr personal in both their The ElevFnfh betvreen these She of Chester, the City Defendants the individual- rzinlaIed qrri l-< <aFL t -^ i mn.\cF ncrcnn:1 for actions he 1iabilitsy upon a government official official-capacity t.akes under color of sLaLe law. ^,,1-a i- \.'ar1aril YLrrLtqrrJ ' lv r L I Jr !a cJA n r L !an L Lrt- n r rl frl r vn anocher way of pfeading an action against an entity is an agent. "' fn other words, of which an officer in an acLion against a government a plaintiff nFfiai:1 in -^-i d9 a -^ts trrL .\f f ha hi< tsl^^ ^tt.i .r/-\\rFrnmFnf is reverse S 1983 official, fuhr 6 L r a canar-i ^^*^^-- l-\r Fnf an official i f v .'.an ranerrrar l in \1- .\ / l e lh r fi 1 / . 1 - q v u a /l IqQr l / ^ l arF acfihliqh fl-^ nr)f nnlrr ^^^^ts^ ar-r-essible, capacity n,-rcnn:I The fawsuit. Ii.al-\i Iit-" y i hr rr r q action, it is enough to show that. t.he act.ing under col-or of state 1aw, caused i ^h ^f 1 .. ( r -.'r^iii f inir'l ca^i_i^h - : I true I'r,rrh6rrn,.\r€ af nor<nna ^.i $r'l drr:r=nrFaq r fodorr'l <r1i l i- fTln rr Lrl ri t r Y ra u . rhr i-ha rnnl anr-ir.1',c nar<^n< FhF c.ma rn cur inrr ridhr' F^ m.La as enjoyed by white citizens." This guaranEee and enforce conL-racts includes lhe right to be free from intentional race discrimlnaLion in v. Parker Group/ 168 F.3d 468, 472 (1lti cir, employment, Ferrill 1999) , Section 198t does noE, however, provide a cause of action againsE state actors. Rather, 42 U,S.C. S 1983 "canstitutes the excLusive federal guaranteed under S remedy for violation by state actors of the rights 1 9 8 1 . " B r v a n t v . . I o n e s , 5 7 5 F . 3 d 1 , 2 8 L , ] . 2 8 Bn . l - ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) . I n d e e d , is thaE S 1981 claims against the Law of this Circuit state actors are 'AffA^t-i\rFl\r ntrd..1" int-^ A 1qe? .l.im< Prr<1.\1, 1' -i11' ^F n?l.h/l^ F.2d'765, 7JL n.6 (Section 1983 "provides the exclusive federal damages remedy for the violation of the rights guaranteed by S 1981 when the cLaim ie nreccpd ad^inef a el-ara ^.1-^r ,r ld,,^FF.l cn rao nmi+FaA11 daa .ld^ Brown v. Citv of Ft. Lauderdale, 923 F.2d L4'74, I4BL (11ch Cir. 1991) (halding thaE any relief available under S 1981 was dupLicative of Lhat available under S 1983). Accordingly, t.o Ehe extenL that PlainEiff asserts a S 1981 claim separaLe and apart from her S 1983 claim, Defendants are entiLled to summary judgment, OLher\,rise. Plaintiff,s S 1981 cLaim is merged into her S l-983 cfaim. a parE in the violation cusEom' must have played f ederal l-aw. " (quoted L992) Cir. Plaj-ntif -6^ f 's tL^ m6ml.\Arc indivj-dual Chester to her officiaf Di6criminatory Individual their rii of discriminatory and her claim Members in against in cl-aim The Court council Defendants f fcrenl- capacity Chester, claim t.he Mayor the city their of official i t- i a<1 A. hrr City indivi-duaf ^.^.. of Plaintiff's capacities the and against. rrnrrarnad Ehe Mayor and the against discharge i c Def endant.s and the City separatefy wil-l- address their 1 than those applicable these against r-a"rai claim capaciEy Thus, omitted) . and citations sources S 1983 personal / - i ru-) r ' Lf / standards 956 F.2d 1056, 1060 (11"" cooper Green Hosp., Inc., Yeldel-l- v. of A plaintiff r nrimr f:nic production the producLion inference in "direct of nna of di scriminat.ion . 5 of of evidence, - pifhFr in may prove f hrclrrdh l-hF discrimination or t.hrough evr-dence" that creates Wriqht v. l-999). Defendanta discharge l- \^t.r l^r,a\/s " ci rcums t.ant ial case on circumstantialanal-ysis .\f evidence" F.3d 1287, 1293 (11'" Cir. Against discriminalory al-leging r..a<a of claitn Discharge Capacities SouthLand corp., When a pl-aintiff an 187 bases her the so-ca11ed burden shif tj-ng McDonneff Dougfas6 and its progeny is used. The 5 Section 1983 race discrlmination claims are analyzed using Lhe identical VII of the Clvil methods of praof used in cases brought pursuant to Title Richardson v. Leeds Police Rights Act af L964, 42 u-5.C. S 2000e-2(a). 1995). Dep't, 71 F.3d 801, 805 (11" cir. 5 McDonnell Douqlas corp. v. Green, 41L U,s. 792 (f9'/3). hrrrrian euh !i u ffr rf: Ji n . r o f with forward : nrre'fly D f D qr l.E9\rf!s- suf f j.cj-ent evidence di s criminat. ion. reason t-han serves mrrat- proffered See Brooks v. quoLed sources '/ F].f narcrr:rli11.r f ha discriminated nlainf iff -,, Td 296 F.3d McDonnel-l- Dougfas on based direct l-hal- the l-hF 1265, r273 is analysis not evidence ^f of Burns have discriminat.ion, hr^^f v. both direct. The Court and burdens burden of i y,]lanl- inn:l at to Cnty., all v. times Joe, s lrr vrith stone 2OO2)). evaluate Gadsden St.ate The claims Comm. 1990) . plainL.if f and circumstantial- will address in each cah.r.t-a1rr Direct "Direct to ultimate EEoc l- ha (citations (11'" Cir. used this eh.rkr Jefferson Fmnl^r..er .1'.1'e1/^11^t-ih^ -r l- .\ inlermediate the empl-oyee remains evidence, cl-aims case 1. f2.l- of iLs the employment 2006) 908 F.2d 1512, 1518 (11th Cir. colleqe, ftat-h^/l ^f against rnc. , crab. r:".;ar i e reasons for back and forth, shift reason for l- hil- "Al-though the facie the pl-ai-ntif f , who County Comm'n of omits!ed) . producEion this \\r\rcf .rf come presumption The production 4 4 6 F . 3 d 1 1 6 0 , ] - L 6 2 - 6 3 ( 1 1 - r "C i r . AIa., fhe dannc f irst a prima non- di scriminatory reasons are "not t.he true decision. " of arri tO is then caLLed upon the burden back to Eo shift nrndrrz-a f esEablish decisj-on. discriminatory allegedly to -int.if The defendant a legitimate, to articulate yfdr This creaLes a rebuELable case of discrimination. of unlawful a Evidence evidence of discrimination would be evidence, whi.h if hel without inference n'^,,1rr iewed. nrn'ra or presumption.'/ 870 F.2d 578, 581 (11'h Cir. intent whose remarks, discrimj-nate constitute Inc. , FrlrfhFr fhF at.titude must compfained Treatment, evidence of points direct to Pfaintiff puts her the fact that her circumstance that he would fire to be considered inference D l . a i 1 1 ti- F f nnlrr i nferenr-e qF.'.\l.rd Dl-:i7rl- iff nlrf is Pl-aintj-f f . white.' f.\rt-h Councilwoman Henl-ey, who testified .r.\i Jv+..: ' r1.r f f 9 v ll .\ L kapn me The Court notes that could have approached PLaintiff. ,a uthi f a r'16TV following of her First, he:rcrrr that tt fcao \ !?:9 to ask for this discrimination, The need r as to do so by fn order evj-dence as direct a 1998) discharge, the Mavor preferred di sorral i fi es this t-\a.':r,Se she Lhe convinced evidence must be drawn that Springs the Mayor cont.inued Mccook to come back and event.ually t.elling Three (l-1tn Cir. forth discriminatory discrimination v. I32 F.3d 635, 64I-42 Pl-aintiff case, this the Cart.er 2 O O 4 ). di er.rimi n^f ,.rrr/ : to plaintiff. the by relate Wifson v. B/E " reflectin.r to faccor (11En Cir. 1,079, 1085 or correl-ate than impermissible some evidenCe fact of Miami, other mean nothing of F.3d 375 direcf of Residential- basis City a " tol nl-y the most. blat.ant evidence of discrimination. direcL Aerospace. In Ehe on Of v. Carter 1989) . couLd -XiStence fl-,6 an Mccook over to draw evidence. ct-.fafr-nf nf ',I,m t.he Mayor said, l r] ga ln l a' v r . +v] this nvA.h v y 1 f the Mayor had been mativated by race, -Fre.h ^l-har fh^n M.a^^L r^ a uhirF, .r- qv 1Lt l L ] t.hen he rAnl:^a .t ha .,.\mmarlf h^r^rcrrar i e With no contexc, conLext. comment does not Thi r,,l Dl:inl-iff tu-r iv.r \r n , rrr.l Ial- r-La bias c=ma in rc 2010) ("A empl-oyment decision In of 2. discriminaEorv In accordance prima a ..:qF A ^ ^l^<<. c.qarr'i See Wifliamson v. ^-r, Day Mayor is aal.l l- h^f Adventist 935, 940 (11rh cir. in from the evidence of t.ime is not direct Itl has failed t.o present direct discharqe. the McDonnefl Douqlas burden shif t.inq will first facie nlai--i I'rarrr.L-!!! disparaE.e treat.ment nr^t-a^t-ad the F \^J L Evidence with the Court est.abl-ished i n<lr-.anj- Pfaintiff circumstantial anal-ysis, in .i^ ") conclusion, evidence Mrlr.\1 under chalLenge, however, Plaintiff's rF}'-F bias separate qf r:.-i amr'\].\\rmanf l- hrl- statement, al lcrrcd l-.\ 372 F. App'x the discharge. with r " l lf 1 q i fL f i l 1rn yvo vr . . not. refate Again, a racj-al Inc., Svstem/Sunbelt, F l-ha i n1_o Accordingly, Me\/.1r'< ral,et- o c:r.'ii.r.r Health biased fhe n.\f Pl-aintiff terminating discrimination. dn Dlainfiff'q te-r rh rirnj n f : esrLrv f.) has identified f nl:.,Fd could made concurrently l- hal/ ^lnnc Pfaintj-f that h^f i ^n jury Mccook's resignation. Lhese commenEs were not n.t- n.)f show discriminatory nninl-q comments t.o her after 1-6fri i q :nd termination. to suffice ad a reasonable comment tso Plaintiff's this hv^J< i y f i cal:t- look case of discriminat.ion r-L rLrcly E-Ld.rJ_!_rrrr by showing that: cha to v/hether Pl-aintif r^r^c .nr^liFiad -r r r c r n ! ti !m1-4 F ' (1) she is fnr f:aia f has in arca the nf a member of a l-1.1a h^ai1-i^h. /al an adverse she suffered rcnl:r'ad h1' luyrglvv y)crsrrrt a rt 4 orrf si de L.'Lpe- l-ess favorably outside of her protected of (l-1tn Cir. l e \ e rlr^ h d c - a ye l r and r -v^ . u hr.rl- q suffered aifrr e Charlin. r nrimr Frr'ia =rri . afler he an "after termination Defs.' Mot, There +i l lind is i n ir fact for fhaI afso r-ha rh:r- Summ, J., i q fhere fcsfifiFd an argument h^ai Fi ^r h^ciri^h f^7 LhaE that was efforts ^f rAm^^r.ri al this (PI .'s arL l1' L6r been al-ong, and and articulated Pl-aintif f 's Br. in Opp'n to aE 20.\ r..\nt-pmn.\raneous Eo be made that a i I \, had experienced iustifv" 26, he have he wanted to rehj-re more to Doc. No. n^ Ia can establ-ish Defendants Plaint.if f contends that the of Mi/'hal hrt-^rlr unsupported by Ehe record, eomnl a i ns " whether earini she was di cnharrrc he determined believed In brief, reason is Mavc)r fam^'la f and McCook were not getting Mccook resigned, reliabfe. examine nnn-di fhe Pl"aintif McCook because M--^^L now she position the r ! ^. r+ he i i - c ' . e .\r\/ nnqil-inn when t.hat Pl-aintiff rii er.rimin:l- HFrF that l-x.' s : Pfaintiff f . , - \ 1 ^h o r that v l l finds ladit-imrt-a fcrmin:l-inn informed nf will- Court f iIIcd the Court r':qe arr'l:1-a/l r ^ r r< individual that. empl-ovment action undisputed was 342 F.3d 128L, ]-289 - , u - 1 L €Li ra d , i L] d- -L wd5 or Bd. of Reqents of undisputed ,.,-^ she was cLass s ituated Educ., is ^r-^^ also Clcrk Thus, The is ft of it adverse an terminaEed. accief.nr- a.,t-...{ plvLrlu Dep't Here, 2003). nrrrtected Mavnard v. cLass. FIa. of Univs. her Lhan a s imi larlv- treated Div- of (4) and employrnent action; Plainti.f f evidence or Plaintiff was rep-Laced by though Plaintiff was only of the Mavor's The faw, however, documentation termination, put employer its Further, Lermination. is In evidence. Mrl'^r/ c rationale ia that testified he 1n-?1 wes - like feLt her wouldn't. have to Plaintiff "didn't 1-arftin.t.ind off and it the ) rational-e do the job ail-17 a.\rrn..i l because wasn'E it I Dlri-fj€F . and f you're know about and 45 ("f i q l"hFr.F the :l thaE ("I had crri lMccookl was my n^* IJEIJ. fel-t danna Council -ts d.L -tr rz going to t.hat., them the thought ca City /nlFF--\!-rLLllld.rr t.he Mayor EoId him he "just coufd (statinq 31 I iust t- hrt- t-ha members prior /^vh'l i.i n.i -\EJtl)lcrlrl,rt19 more comfortable with time that alre:drz M-f-.\.-\L') rt- /av^lrinina in Mq / , fv + v 1c r r ! -.\l nan " t.o {-L-f LtrctL she had done and the Fd had M.\'^, Mccook and t.he 'iob that i n\/Fsf ha felt and I be right, ] , and if lPlaint.iff to ha better. iob wasn'E because she was white. z ) amq the rlonncitinn. l-ha and for have no probl-ems, and she was you afready one you t.hink you need."); his l-.1d and I I didn't have somebody - well, expl-ained do t.o L.he know as much as [Mccook] knows") t 4l when we hired r\r.\t\l hi< hear no more about. it."); a good clerk hr: ha a good job, lMccook] . clerk, ii an t.he raElonale reason fM..r'.\.rk1 ...\ma back worked with best regarding lMccook] could fh^f that contemporaneous .1l-:1-a,,l paperwork Pfaintiff's require articulated knew that. on sending for not Mccook could leffin.r she was doing trust the rana:fa,'ll1r Ic:rnl:inin.r + t la " r! cen/ + g e e i n q r r : J writing in case, (Parker Dep. aE 25 ("I "). does sworn testimony this dor'ician reason Ms. he had fL-f t.La M i/ rv rr ^ 1 . ge lu-v^r lud hrr and he said Ln^br - record amply Mccook over | you f hFm qh.lrl- Ehe Mayor was concerned get can't ,| /'\ minimal q.\ ^l^nrt Tn along l'hi < r:f burden with i6naLe the not one anotheri is Suf f icient producEion of you preferred ("[I] t's 22 - l-hF about simpfy (See Parker Dep. at Defendants' meet t') I-,natesf and Mccook and Plaintiff. if f in.r lMccook] back because, l-hF Plaintiff . r . \ i - j -. \ r i i r r i d c vL here that support.s because, racial to h\aan belween conflict )/vu aho'q rref w:sn'j- to have he woul-d fike <ha'c \\f ha\/ l-h^f aE this sEage. now turns The analysis Mayor's is Coa!€ is mere'l v evidence nrefexf a (citation omitted) . raa<1.rn iq rrof Burqos-stefanel-Ii v. Comm'n of cir M.\rri q.rn Cnty.. \/ is retaliaEion U.s. (f l-th Cir. 247 .fef ferson \. Sec'y, t.his it Afa. , (-i1-\.' ^f introduce the asserted " C1ark mination. CircuiE her Cir. is V. l-993) clear: shown boLh thaL Lhe was the real- reason. " Dep't 201f) that. 1-228 (11th 121-7 , r,)rFfFXLual unless and that 243, di scri The law of reason was fa1se, F. App'x for 990 F.2d & e lerk-,_I-n-S:, showing for "must PrarrrLrr probative significantly rF^s.)n :-tr tf n!r e ' L E"^'L v ^ I' can show Ehe reason non- di scriminatory legitimate, -erminarion Plaint.iff to whether of Homeland Sec., (citing Brooks v. r:.r Cnt.y. 1163 (11th 446 F.3d 1160, R^i nhr.i d.rF 410 d1? !' Ann'.i "nnA\ 87'l , 881 succeed in (11Lh this cir. either 2011) (same) directly by persuading the court. that a discriminatory i rn u lf i r a !a t lr r r u f J ; t r e qhnr^ri ncr hrr is explanation i danf i f v li ruvrrerr an emnlorrer, s E'L'yrv)/u!, Royal At1. v. Alvarez (11-th Cir. .Il^ adf.hl Mayor's i ch r reasons is contencion Developers, (internaf 2010) h r r - F ^L Er: r ! L .. I/! c -i -fi €F to Mayor explained his Pittman Dep. at DFn .t ?? ) 4v ur!/r Eo her position J-t . lli q nref and Mccook goE along very u tl - r y r w .rr M \a r r J U r r , c l" -r. a n l ! . l r r r ^ , / 1 rh \ / f e four erenr-e nf - _ r f' ft s t9a ..r- ^ - --- - i . l n e cr q -1 r-redcnr'4. e we11. that ^i ne fh:j- shown above, l-hF this shows that the members (see Council and he began imploring days after she resigned f or was Mccook on her She offers f h:l- l-hcrr did Plaintif f reasons Plaint.iff tesLimony several h^l- ^6F YEL tha! a matlel. . that. she anecdotes - vrn a lt ^ r r Y beCaUSe -l a a ys the resolve Lhe issue of wheLher PlainLiff and Mccook -'is for Defendants to show that the sufficient Mccook testified that they did not get along. that she Mayor believed Eold the Mayor Ehey were not geEting along; the Mayor and Mccook cold che CiLy Council EhaE they were noL gecEing along; and Mccook's resignation lcl-r-cr .-mnl,ains of hrr hastile work environment. Plaintiff has offered The Court duLudrrl YUL need not As r .vn m n l r v L'LP was made to fire al-so rel- j-es heavily Plaintiff a--.i c.Yatrr n 7), at the time the decision of record actions the 610 F.3d 1253, ]-265 CiLy 12; Coley Dep. at /M.r'.r.\k iES The evidence inaccurate, reasoning in omitted) . noL documented. are simply Mccook to return fol. fnc., quoEations nt by them unworthy of credence. " could find a reasonabl-e factfinder preEexLuaf is cont,radictions rcesons 4v:i+v+!!!see may . t- - r - , , ^ i ! . i t i { - i ^ f r L r L F Ja . L . or IF.r'it. im^f c nroffered y!vr!e!ee fered The plaintiff Id. ..^^1-*^^^^^ wcdI|rrEbscs, incoherencies inconsistencies, nrof emnl.1vFr's reason empLoyer's \\sr1r':h ncr +rr:t fhe of credence. " unworthy E.hat d.emonsErate fh^f the employer or motivated reason more ]ike1y aruly, !u between the two Mayor was compf etel-y wrong about Ehe conffict women, his har ar.f i c nraf r1^ l acEual-fy got. al-ong is whol-l-y Whether Mccook and Plaintiff i vral 'fha a\r-rr1t- to motivation fire facts, erroneous is action i nrrrri rrr in fhiq not ..aqa for or for a f rT.rrqe< .,ln fhe a bad reason, no reason at discriminatory a reason al-l-, Ma\/or's may fire "The employer Plaintiff. a good reason, employee for reason to terminaEe non- di scriminatory legitimate, based on l-ongf as as reason. " v. Nix Radio/Rahafl- commc'ns, 738 F.2d 1181, 1187 (11th Cir. Elrod see also / 1 ri , : f ! a-i ? \ 1qq1) finarrirrr was the reason engage in actually simply Eo litigate v. Instead, that Florida, the sole discharge; is F.3d to affow 1339, is whether no evidence Mayor's that WLCY 1984); . issues Tit.le in facc, 1342 cmnlnrrar so, whether employee did irrelevant) not The Efeventh Iike VfI this one, plaintiffs good employees. " (11th cir. 2002). "unl-awful- discriminaEory the adverse decisions. doubt on t h e of f ice. rJ.ral-l.la? that in analyzing not concern presents no e v i d e n c e t o c a s t in f h A a i 1 - l / a l a . L / e 285 t-^ of misconducE and if whether they are, animus" motivated Pfaintiff Iimifod misconduct "must be careful a court Roias behind has cautioned circuit ic its 939 F,2d 1465, 1470 Roebuck & Co., Sears, empl-oyee was guilty believed that v. an her perception Id. In this employer that acted case, with he had a conflict animus. 10 discriminatory f Pl-aintif evidence of cannot .'radanra following Q: f f ii f rrri Y n a ! Tn rr^ rahi hi-I-LI f^.1- -^ F^ . / 1^,i L L IJ! 9(J-L-(Iy ha nraforro/l PlslrlrLs f |Mv.e a v . \ r \ L , v -r ! . L r har knew how to do the wcl I ha m:rr or r did not . .\\rar 4y i c r her rrrwnrt- case in or know that > own hrr nf the l he l -s' !^i . , L " v !, his ways changed I knew he wanted a you I could teIl, m6 a\ran iu h ^ ,s d h r -u v ,Y r T r iob. nrofcrr.ad h:rra she was white that ? M^/-^^L you suspect r r rrj 1 . y for Because one thing, towards me. So, therefore, white person in t.he office. lzrnr.r a). \l . hd her deposition; And how - how did ^^i ri rJE L! exchange during ,w 'd--^ . A: 1-ror none, the Mayor's proffered and she has noE persuaded the Court that €av without. She has presented int.ent.. discriminatory judgment summary survive Mq not . M-f-.Ok Did black. Not at you Whether consider al-l- . A: I did a. Did you understand that. he mighL have had a good rdorking relationship wit.h her going back a l-ong time before you had been working for him? No, You di.dn' t ? 1c 'rl-'^rrdh I - that hadn'!. mind. I had never That had never crossed thought about that. Ti- ' q A: f Dl.ihriFf nrrqqi .l^a< hl li r^r sn, hra<ant- my it? rhic.< A\ridah^a ^F ^ra+avF /caa P l . ' s B r . i n O p p ' n t o D e f s . ' M o t . f o r S u m m .J . , D o c . N o . 2 6 , a E 2 I - 2 7 ] , , a l ttle random, unrelated could be made Lhat racial commenls argument evidences discriminatory allegedly rnade by the Mayor to Plaintiff animus. bias, while Lhese comments may suggest a racial chey do noE rise to a jury 1evel sufficient to aLlow a reasonable to deternine thaL a motivated reason more likely the Mayor's termination or discriminatory explanation is unworthy of credence. that his proffered (Pl-.'s f^r coul-d have been. It A: Dep. at t - h r nv ous !s i+ + e )h i I i t w P u + + , other anything prefers 1414: Td \ .f 4e qr-q? ) Yet, t.his is all to entitl-ed that Plaint.if f 's suit their a a]rur-iL r =!t 6 '. 1 L c - r u r E\ d -f t-.\ reDresen!. the Citv U.S. 155-56 !59, toward against h^j- says l -h e that he that person, " a black trcr-rrrqc has . on Ma\/or ahose discharge. wj.thout f , ev j-dence of are Defendants Pfaintiff's claim of of and MonelI (1978)). 658, 690 n.55 this is ^hFifr' crrLr LJ case, of f j.cial--capacit.y 931 F.2d claims indirzidrr:lq Graham, 473 of Dep't Soc. Because the City Pl-aintif f 's agalnsE the Mayor and the City See Busby, functionally t-haca v. Council- City See Kentuckv v. (citing has been named in redundant. Fl-\^ L-rrs Chester. (1985) Mayor capacities ---ih-F rn:nfi^- Chester claims Citsy of C1airn Against the Capacities in their Official the official 436 V.S. Plaintiff's than Pl-aintif judgment servs., capacity more even fact discharge. in members are f DiEcharge Diecriminatory Chester and the Defendants Pl-aintif " lTl he a claim of discriminatory summary discrimj-natory B. statement: her iE must have been based upon race-is animus di- scriminat.ory cl-oses then am black to sustain too attenuaEed MCCOOk WaS fOr Plaintiff qrrl l.\.r'iqm-j- Thiq PLaintiff, Mccook over I not affow did nrcfqlgngg a whit.e person work with to . f ol-l-owing and Plaintiff M^1'.\r'< racial the whiEe [McCookJ is fha fhaf lhan wit.h deposition put, simply 38-39.) at 776. of official-- Council members accordingly, are hereby DISMfSSED. ^r i L F /r ' u ^f ahadt- c t r n e r i !o2r v acEions of fo that a r,:nnnf mttricinel t-h6 ral1r if\,' ^n I iable .^ individuaf 691. Instead, ifrz ul hsv lr r d r rights u - r r q i -n m indifference deliberate McDowe]I v. a.r+ the ra1r't.\nrftaf for 436 U.S. at -,,-i^i^-'l and (3) that righ!; claim againsl (1) that. her constitutional- fLh a d L tf I / rz\ / \ to Ehe custom or policy nr that caused Brown, 392 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th 2 0 0 4) . above, As discussed claim discriminat.ion 'r^ ha f h.\r.rrl.rh genuine 1-crmin:f issue inn <hF against ewen fact with of ^r-i mttdt- Additionally, r^ h^ld a single t-ha l'l i/l^nf i f decision of anl-il-\, chester of i€" - -Lr)i Here, a final to AFF 4t5 U.S. 469, 4A0 (L986). It is undisputed Cincinnati, policyrnaking authoriLy respecting Ehe final the hiring Fnhl^1/AFe uhiah in.l,,dad ^nl1/ fhF aiFlz alA.L fha nvn l y f Plainti.f ied fi n r )r/ e s n! r v f cont.ends po1ic1'maker can nunicipaf Ii:hla identif Plaintiff' 6 r1 1!n+j u r-yi q r : l n L Lu r r d. a necessarify CourE. had respect thac Pl-aintif f 's therefore, 1- c h termination. d^varnmphf establish cannot t.he City howewer. custom Lhat caused her <,,ffi.F Pl-aintiff was viol-ated; protectred right federally tt f f Monell, constituted the violalion.11 a nl-i h^ld and constitutionaf Cir. nl:i must establish rri^t.r-a.t. pol-icy : officers. its a pl-aintiff wara a1^ tL h revc r r vj r e ! avyvL discharge t.o t.he discriminatory Turning DFmtr.,'/ r' r'iFrr ^F that Lhe Mayar was and firing of cicy acaicl-.nf .irv 116tv outdoor Lawn and maintenance workers, and a night watchman (Parker Dep. at 7-8). However, ag discussed above, the Mayor's decision to terminate pLaintiff was not discriminatory, and thus the cily of Chester cannot be hFld IiAhla hr<ad u..n fhic qindlc d..ici^n M-ia^vAr Dl:irriFr,c aLLempt to fold the city Council members into liability based upon their alleged acquiescence to the decision is unavailing because the City Council did not vote to termillate Plaintiff and had no influence over the decision. that maintained "Defendants white employees with naFd, M^l- r\16r'6?t-L6l 6.d htacanl-c employees qrlms €ar nia1- n^ y!vrlrrer arri,.lan.-a hired Plaintiff M.r'^r .re^n . inrrr l - \ ' 1. ^ L rra=rc rad : fcm:lc hri^r f .\ nrrc whi white, iTl.l \ r'ifv including .:i. se cL: F L v. !1 1 - ^f .\f f i.F t-4 l,li carimi a vr \ / a v v a) r 1 / L \/! , hrd q that hirinrr n.r'l 1/ nra..t. t'rA Mr\/.)r i..aq that t- i.rn f hF .\f \ l iff the Mayor Moreover, . n:at- ai l-\r aaq<i r-lcrlr a fnr I / v v + ! 4 v 4 lp:rkar- -l- 4? aL \rq, Dl:inf i n ?a -e. rcnl:r'irrrr notion. this r'\.r<i nf he want.ed co hire t/voruJvrr, .t_ Dl:inl- ir.rr The fact nrodar.a<<nr h^diFi^h fhF ncrl .-l arL , ' l |v - rh a . v a bl-ack night A.'..\rdi nrr-.\rv hc'l M/-rr.\,,rL' r-lFrk : belies (]i l-\r hl:nk The Mavor testified 63. ) I hi 1A black in opp'n <l-:t-amant- employees. to begin with h=rl \]^ r^r: q fherc empl-oyees wiLh white (P] 's Br. n^^ nnnn'lrrcartr fh^l- replacing of ." .T fhie black r -h a pol-icy a hed ^f one bfack and nrrl- ei.la l-ha black and ) hired nar. both wat.chman and a bl-ack fawn man. i f f r-.r .,:hnrrl- h.\'ld l-ha qhnw : r - i 1 -r r nn] ^F irrr nf rrhacl- ar .i -l^1^ IV. Upon the foregoing, CONCLUSION Defendants' motion for summary Plaint.iff also contends that Defendants mainLained a policy of " whice employees more favorably than similarly situated btack "treaEing e m p l o y e e s . " ( P l . ' s B r . i n O p p ' n t o D e f s . ' M o t . f o r S u m m .J , , D o c . N o . 2 6 , at 2A-) Yet, other than her ultimaLe termination, Plaintiff has presented no evidence that she was treated any differently than a simitarly positioned or more specificaLly, white employee, Mccook. In fact, Plaintiff had simifar duties to Mccook and could make her own iob scheduLe. Moreover, the Mayor's alleged offensive comments took pLace after Mccook was gone so Lhat there is no comparator. In short, Plaintiff has not' demonstraled disparate t.reatment vrhile she was an employee of the 1ri fir ^F a}l a -t- ar iudqment (doc. no. 20) is GRANTED. The Clerk in CLOSE tshis case and ENTER,JITDGMEIiI:T favor ORDER ENrERED at Februarv, 2016. Augusta, Georgia, is instructed of to Defendants. this 24uu" ",
]]>
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.
