Porter v. City of Savannah, Georgia, No. 4:2015cv00297 - Document 19 (S.D. Ga. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 6 Motion to Dismiss; dismissing Plaintiff's race discrimination claims arising before she was denied a promotion on December 2, 2011, and her claim for punitive damages; additionally dismissing Plaintiff's retaliation claim, subject to her ability to file an amended complaint - if appropriate, in light of footnote four - within fourteen (14) days of this Order; and determining that Plaintiff's § 1981 race discrimination claim arising out of Defendant's denial of her sought-after promotion on December 2, 2011 survives Defendant's motion and moves forward. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 8/23/2016. (jah)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Porter v. City of Savannah, Georgia Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION CHANDRA L. PORTER, * * Plaintiff, * v. * CITY OF SAVANNAH, GEORGIA, CV 415-297 * * Defendant. * ORDER Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 6). IN PART For the reasons below, and DENIED IN PART. I, Plaintiff, Defendant (Compl., as an a Doc. 1, communications U to resources (Id. 8-9.) 6.) technician, promotions Since the positions for Plaintiff's years BACKGROUND African-American Plaintiff UK Defendant's motion is GRANTED and Yet, which of of specialist then, began in Defendant human resources ultimately, Plaintiff she female, has has human not applied. working January has for 1998. promoted assistant, human resources analyst. received all In fact, the despite experience and her educational background, Dockets.Justia.com Defendant has denied her at least ten promotions.1 (Id. i[f 7, 1216, 18-20, 22-23, 26-27, been filled by females (1) or Pacific Island decent" 30.) Of these ten jobs, who were "white" or "of either Asian and (2) who had no more - often less education and/or work experience than Plaintiff. 16, 19-20, seven have - %% 12-14, (Id. 23-29.) In light of African-American these circumstances, race, Plaintiff, her on credentials, May 30, 2012, and her filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission "alleging that the failure to promote her was discriminatory." "subjected to including[] and adverse f 34.) Thereafter, employment action Plaintiff by was Defendant, being removed from the position she previously held placed in advancement." Plaintiff (Id. a (Id. position U 35.) filed suit in this that Consequently, failing to promote her and new position race no opportunity on November 9, for 2015, Court alleging that Defendant, (1) committed offers (2) by later transferring her to a discrimination and retaliation in 1 Plaintiff applied for these positions between June 2001 and November 2011. (Compl. %% 12, 25.) Plaintiff's final promotion application was denied on December 2, 2011. In terms of (IcL H 26.) education, Plaintiff, at the time she filed her complaint, had "two Bachelor's degrees, one in Management and one in Human Resources Management"; "two Master's degrees, one in Human Resources Development and one in Leadership"; ua Human Resources Generalist Certificate"; ua Certified Human Resources Management (CHRM) Certification from the Carl Vinson Institute at the University of Georgia"; "a Professional in Human Resource (PHR) Certification from the HR Certification Institute Certified Professional (SHRM-CP) certification." (HRCI)"; (Id. % 7.) and wa SHRM violation of 42 U.S.C. response, (Id^ %% § 1981.2 35, 37, 42.) In Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). II, DISCUSSION In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Court tests the legal sufficiency of the the complaint, not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the merits. Scheuer v. Rhodes, all 416 U.S. facts in Hoffman-Pugh the light v. (1974). Court conclusions as The Court must accept as true 312 favorable to the F.3d 1225 not need 1222, accept the all 662, complaint also must true, on its face.'" (11th 544, wfactual 570 content inference that alleged." Cir. See 2002). complaint's legal Ashcroft v. (2009). "contain sufficient factual matter, xto state a claim to relief that is plausible Id. 550 U.S. 678-79 reasonable plaintiff. true - only its well-pleaded facts. 556 U.S. accepted as most Ramsey, the Conversely, A 236 alleged in the complaint and construe inferences Iqbal, 232, at 678 (2007)). that Id. (quoting Bell Atl. the The plaintiff allows the defendant "The court is to liable plausibility is Corp. Twombly, required to plead draw for standard v. is the reasonable the misconduct not akin to a 2 Because 42 U.S.C. § 1981 "creates no cause of action against a state, county, or municipal actor," Plaintiff's failure to promote and retaliation claims will be construed as "§ 1983 claim [s] for . . . alleged violation [s] of § 1981." at *7 n.3, Educ., See Moore v. *8 (S.D. Ga. 531 F.3d 1336, City of Douglas, Sept. 1337 30, 2015) (11th Cir. No. CV 513-118, (citing Baker v. 2008)). 2015 WL 9690326, Birmingham Bd. of 'probability requirement, ' but it asks for more than possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." A. Defendant's To its motion, Exhibit 1, record, a administrative included memo (1) concerning Metropolitan Police Department, positions of human and analyst, senior Meanwhile, Evidence Plaintiff's Plaintiff's services division of within human transfer technician, 2, human In (Doc. certain exhibits at dismiss. See analyst. Defendant (Doc. included Holdings, Inc. , However, if pleadings," motion as Civ. P. be considered ex rel. Saldivar 906 the the extrinsic can U.S. F. Supp. 2d evidence Court must as v. 1264, regards exclude evidence, part of Fresenius 1271 ("If, 6-2.) documents which was "matters it or on a motion under Rule like a treat the motion Medical (N.D. one for summary judgment under Rule 56. 12(d) the 6-3.) situations, hand, to resources related to Plaintiff's Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, filed in 2004. action job descriptions for the resources Exhibit employee Within the Savannah-Chatham County and (3) resources sheer Id. Defendant attached Exhibits 1 and 2. Defendant (2) Extrinsic a Ga. Care 2012). outside the or the instant See Fed. 12(b)(6) to R. 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the judgment court, under the motion Rule must 56."). be Thus, treated in as one order for for summary Defendant's exhibits to be considered as part of the instant motion, they cannot be "matters outside the pleadings." In this constitute is case, "matters referred central Defendant's to to outside America Here, at Sec, 1271 claim; (citing L.L.C., the exhibits 600 the exhibits summary a merits SFM F.3d Court the the not evidence evidence the ex re 1. Saldivar, 1337 Ltd. (11th are not this the court Inc. v. Lewis, has 12(b)(6) discretion motion."). Defendant's motion V. 906 Banc Cir. of 2010)). referred to in motion parties 752 F.2d 599, that as is Therefore, to is evidence's into have one not dismiss disregard the exhibits referenced above. to 604 whether for begun Court will not convert Defendant's motion. beyond the pleading[s] of will the Court can only consider converts because (2) Holdings, 1334, (1) (3) See U.S. As a result, Yet, & Invs., ("The material with the Mgmt. 1985) the judgment. discovery, Prop. if and that Defendant offers Plaintiff's complaint. if complaint; authenticity is not in question. F. Supp. 2d evidence the pleadings" in Plaintiff's Plaintiff's extrinsic See (11th Cir. to accept offered in conjunction as it below, considers the Court the will B. Merits of Defendant's Motion In support of its motion to dismiss, Defendant offers three arguments, which will be considered, in turn, below.3 1. First, barred. Defendant Statute argues Specifically, failure to occurred promote in 2011 running of the 1983." (Def.'s Br., retaliation claim, that Plaintiff's "all before, two year Limitations Defendant claims, or of statute Doc. 6-1, Defendant maintains of must claims which be of that are dismissed contends 3.) As that to because of 42 for this time- Plaintiff's alleged limitations at are have of the U.S.C. § Plaintiff's claim must also be dismissed "to the extent that the act upon which the claim is based occurred more than two years prior to November 9, 2015." to claims (Id.) Two different asserting 1981. causes Jones (2004). v. statutes of R.R. For those action of that limitations arisen & Sons Donnelley have Co., 3 1990, a from 541 causes of action that arose the adoption of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 1, apply catchall four-year statute of 42 U.S.C. U.S. from ("Act") § 367, Doc. 6-1.) However, one of those four is a 371 1981 after on December limitations Defendant actually makes four arguments in support of dismissal. Br., § applies. (Def.'s judicial estoppel argument advanced to prevent Plaintiff "from asserting a claim for monetary damages for promotions allegedly denied . . . before [her] bankruptcy discharge on October 9, 2009." (Id. at 6.) Because the statute of below will resolve this issue, the Court will not judicial estoppel argument. limitations analysis address Defendant's See 28 U.S.C. hand, the § 1658(a); for those adoption Jones, 541 U.S. 371. causes of action that arose of the Act, "the most On the other from § 1981 before appropriate state statute of limitations" applies. In this case, at Jones, or analogous 541 U.S. the most analogous state statute of limitations is the two-year statute of limitations found in O.C.G.A. See Moore, 2015 WL 9690326, Within involving and (2) the her two Court § 1981 will causes Plaintiff of action: Accordingly, determine which in has (1) asserted failure separate statute of applicable to of limitations each cause of from action. O.C.G.A. However, Plaintiff's failure to promote claims, on Defendant's senior human discussed. denial of Plaintiff's resources analyst Plaintiff's other based on denials on claims to promote sections below, limitations four-year statute of limitations from 28 U.S.C. statute § 9-3-33. at *8. complaint, retaliation. two-year at 371. § 1658(a) § - the or the 9-3-33 - is with respect to only that which is based sought-after December failure to 2, promotion 2011, promote will claims to be are that took place more than four years prior to the date on which Plaintiff's complaint was filed - November 9, 2 015 - and are thus barred by the statute of is, at most, four years. limitations, which a. Failure to Promote Prior to the adoption of the Act, "a failure to promote claim was actionable under § 1981 x[o]nly where the promotion r [ose] to the level of an opportunity for a new and distinct relation between the employee and the employer.'" Moore, 2015 WL 9690326, U.S. at 164, *9 185 (quoting Patterson v. (1989)). Meanwhile, McLean Credit Union, after the Act was 491 adopted, "the scope for an actionable failure to promote claim broadened" such that a plaintiff could * 'bring a failure to promote claim under § 1981(b) even where the promotion would not amount to a new and distinct 696 F. Supp. relationship.'" 2d 1313, 1321 Id. (N.D. Ga. (quoting Bryant v. 2010)). Consequently, key inquiry in determining whether Plaintiff's arose before Plaintiff the sought passage of would the have Act is cause whether created a Jones, of the action the and "new promotion distinct relationship" between Defendant and her. "Determining distinct whether relationship a is quotation marks complaint, Plaintiff notes from "Human and a promotion qualifies as fact-based inquiry." Id. citation Resources only that Analyst" Analyst." (Compl. UK determine whether Plaintiff's distinct 9, omitted). 25.) she to Yet, sought "Senior Without promotion more, would a new (internal within to Resources Court cause relationship between Defendant and her. the be promoted Human the and As a a cannot new and result, the Court failure also cannot, to promote at claim this time, conclude arose before of limitations. promote claim, sought-after Tello v. Cir. Accordingly, is promotion based on ("Dismissal under on statute of on Inc., 2011, 410 Federal limitations Plaintiff's 2, the Act rather than four-year, Defendant's December Dean Witter Reynolds, 2005) 12(b)(6) which Plaintiff's the passage of such that it is subject to a two-year, statute that Rule grounds denial is of her See 1275, of to proceed. may F.3d failure 1288 Civil (11th Procedure appropriate only if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the claim is time-barred."). b. Retaliation claims, become actionable under Belton v. 4478668, Russell 30, claim 2012 limitations Given like the one Plaintiff asserts, did not § passed. 1981 until Bd. of at *2 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 1, retaliation May Cnty. Retaliation - which - is is Educ. , 2012). based subject to found within 28 U.S.C. this timeframe, after Plaintiff's on the No. the Act was 3:10CV814, Therefore, conduct retaliation WL Plaintiff's occurring four-year § 1658(a). 2012 after statute (Compl. claim of H 34.) is not barred by the statute of limitations. 2. Next, claim Defendant should be Failure to State a maintains dismissed that because she Claim Plaintiff's has failed retaliation to state a retaliation claim upon which relief can be granted. of her argument, Defendant contends In support that Plaintiff has alleged insufficient facts to establish a "causal link between protected activity and adverse See Bryant v. employment Jones, 575 F.3d (providing that a plaintiff, race-based (1) 1281, engaged suffered an in 1307-08 U.S.C. statutorily adverse (Def.'s Br. (11th at 9-10.) Cir. 2009) to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under 42 "[s]he Ms] he action." § 1981, must protected employment show that: activity"; action"; and (3) (2) Ms] he established a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action"). Within her complaint, Plaintiff statutorily protected activity at a charge adverse of transferred her advancement." concerned, to action at 30, issue "a position that (Compl. f^[ 9, 34-35.) Plaintiff (1) that the issue occurred when she filed discrimination on May employment indicates 2 012, and occurred offers no (2) when that the Defendant opportunity for Yet, as far as causation is alleges only that her transfer came after she filed her charge of discrimination. (Id. f 35.) Plaintiff does not provide the date of her transfer - which could possibly indicate close Plaintiff's Defendant temporal proximity charge and her transfer committed any Penaloza v. Target Corp., between - nor does intervening 847 filing she allege retaliatory 549 F. App'x 844, 10 the acts. (11th Cir. of that See 2013) ("[T]emporal causation; proximity the events, quotation marks of Am., 390 absence F. of to close 2d 1335, can 973, Boyland v. (11th proximity causation where after the enough Cir. (S.D. Fla. 2014) ("The Corr. Corp. ("In the the protected a plaintiff may be intervening plaintiff show (internal 2010) between retaliatory acts engaged Thompson v. City of Miami Beach, 1343 to must be very close." 974-75 temporal be employer's adverse action, shortly activity."); however, App'x establish commenced itself and citation omitted)); activity and the able by in a Fla., protected 990 F. Supp. Eleventh Circuit in the absence of any other evidence of causation, has held a three-month proximity between a protected activity and an adverse employment action is insufficient to create a (internal quotation marks omitted) at 974-75)). to state face. VII a § 1981 retaliation removed issue claim 990 F. Supp. claim employment from retaliation for and [the plaintiff's] that to is 250 (11th Cir. 2011) retaliation claims under 390 F. App'x state retaliatory plausible a claim acts 11 the its same as too the far filing a 408 F. App'x elements required to § 1981 are where are protected activity of ("The on (dismissing a Title discrimination charge"); Worley v. City of Lilburn, 248, causation." Plaintiff has failed 2d at 1343 failure actions on (citing Boyland, In the absence of such facts, See Thompson, "adverse jury establish those required for Title VII claims."). Accordingly, Plaintiff's retaliation claim is subject to dismissal.4 3. Finally, damages Punitive Damages Defendant against [it] contends must be that "any for (Def.'s dismissed." claim punitive Br. at 11.) The United States Supreme Court has held that "a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 Newport Hence, v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 § U.S. 1983." 247, City of 271 (1981). Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages are dismissed. Ill, For IN U.S.C. the reasons PART Defendant's Plaintiff's denied a race the motion to Court GRANTS dismiss discrimination promotion punitive above, CONCLUSION damages on are (Doc. claims December 2, PART 27). arising 2 011, DISMISSED. IN and DENIES As a result, before and Additionally, was claim her she for Plaintiff's retaliation claim is dismissed subject to her ability to file an amended complaint - 4 if appropriate Within her response brief, in light of Plaintiff requests that, footnote four - " [t]o the extent that this Court feels that Plaintiff has not properly stated a claim," the Court "grant her permission to file an Amended Complaint in this matter." (PL's Br., Doc. 9, at 5.) Given the facts Court will grant Plaintiff's request. Defendant's extrinsic occur until June 17, evidence 2014 - a her charge of discrimination. other evidence of retaliation, at 1343 ("The Eleventh circumstances indicates that R. Civ. (Doc. this 6-2 at 10.) fact, if has held in this case, 15(b). the However, transfer after the did not filing of Assuming Plaintiff has no true, matter of law. Circuit of P. Plaintiff's date more than two years Plaintiff's retaliation claim as a 2d and See Fed. is enough See Thompson, the absence to preclude 990 of F. Supp. any other evidence of causation, a three-month proximity between a protected activity and an adverse employment action is insufficient to create a jury issue on causation." (internal quotation marks omitted)). 12 within fourteen (14) days of this Order. As for Plaintiff's § 1981 race discrimination claim arising out of Defendant's denial of her sought-after promotion on December 2, 2011, that claim survives Defendant's motion and moves forward. ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, August, Georgia, this ^^<v3^^ day of 2016. HONOR&BE33 J. RANDAL HALL UNITED SPATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN/DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 13
]]>
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.
