Williams v. City of Newport News, No. 4:2015cv00007 - Document 31 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 11 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED, ECF No. 11, and the trial of this civil action shall be removed from the Court's calendar. Copies distributed as directed.Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 10/23/2015. (bgra)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. City of Newport News Doc. 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT FILED COURT OF VIRGINIA Newport News Division EULA M. OCT 2 3 2015 CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT WILLIAMS, •• • OLK.VA Plaintiff, Civil v. No. 4:15cv7 CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, Defendant OPINION This judgment No. matter is filed by 11. After before the AND the City of examination ORDER Court Newport of the on a motion News briefs arguments are adequately summary ("Defendant"). and the Court determines that a hearing is unnecessary, legal for presented, record, Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. "Summary judgment procedure disfavored procedural shortcut, R. and the decisional just, action.'" speedy and Celotex Corp. is properly regarded not (quoting Fed. construed with R. Civ. due P. regard Catrett, 1)). as a but rather as an integral part inexpensive v. Fed. 7(J). of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed the the as the facts and process would not be aided significantly by oral argument. R. ECF determination 477 U.S. Accordingly, not only for the 317, "Rule rights 'to secure of every 327 (1986) 56 must be of persons asserting claims and defenses that are adequately based in fact Dockets.Justia.com to have those claims and defenses tried to a jury, the rights of persons opposing such claims and demonstrate in the manner provided by the Rule, that the claims and (emphasis added). defenses Here, summary judgment brief have no Defendant has but also for defenses prior to trial, factual basis." Id. presented a well-argued supported by countless citations evidentiary record in an effort to demonstrate that claims have no factual basis. to to the Plaintiff's Plaintiff's abbreviated response, containing minimal substance and no citation to the evidentiary record, Court is inherently inadequate, therefore clearly and demonstrate the materials that summary before the judgment is warranted in this case. I. The M. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL undisputed facts Williams ("Plaintiff") for over twenty years Services ("DHS"). in ECF before the BACKGROUND Court establish that Eula was previously employed by Defendant the No. Newport News Department 12 H 4. Plaintiff, an of Human African American female, retired from her position at DHS in 2010 at the age of 62. Id. From 2009 until her retirement in 2010, Plaintiff was supervised by Karen Traylor ("Traylor), a younger African American female who had less experience in the relevant field than Plaintiff. a written positive evaluation and Id. H 7. of negative In late 2010, Traylor provided Plaintiff's remarks, performance including that included assertions that Plaintiff "often challenge[s] those in position[s] of authority," and "needs to work on establishing a better working relationship with staff members." Plaintiff wrote evaluation in a rebuttal December to of Id. 1 9; ECF No. 12-6. the 2010, negative she did procedure in place to appeal such evaluation. 13; ECF No. portions not While of her utilize the ECF No. 12 11 12- 12-6. In 2012, Plaintiff re-applied for employment at DHS for a part-time position without 16. retirement benefits. ECF No. 12 1 Such position required "positive interpersonal relationship skills" because it included responsibilities associated with training, coordinating third-party audits, working with multiple internal units, working as an in-house consultant to workers and supervisors, consultants. and acting as a liaison to regional Id^ 1 18; ECF No. 12-5 11 4-5. and state In early 2013, Diana Clark ("Clark"), a Caucasian female who was 40 years old at the time, was chosen to be the "hiring manager" for the part- time position.1 ECF No. 12 11 19-20; ECF No. 12-4 11 1, 3. Clark chose seven applicants to be interviewed without regard to age, race, gender or disability, Kinser ("Kinser"). to include Plaintiff and Faith ECF No. 12 11 21-22; ECF No. 12-4 11 4-5. An interview panel of three individuals, including Clark and two 1 Clark's responsibilities included selecting and interviewing candidates and assembling "hiring packages" for further evaluation by management. ECF No. 12 51 20; ECF No. 12-4 51 3. African American females in their early 4 0s, as 23, selected Plaintiff its first choice and Kinser as an alternate. 26; ECF No. 12-3 1 10; ECF No. 12-4 ECF No. 11 6-8. 12 11 Kinser is a Caucasian female who was 4 9 in early 2013 and who had 25 years of prior service at DHS. ECF No. 12 1 27; ECF No. 12-3 1 12. Although Plaintiff was the interview panel's first choice, Defendant's written hiring policy required that reference checks be completed before an employment offer is made, further stating that "[e]mployment reference checks are an integral part of the selection process." Plaintiff's early former 2013 provided negative individuals in with to work with; re-hire supervisor, regarding a interacted ECF No. 12 1 29; ECF No. 12-5, at 12. two based Plaintiff's written on had past DHS reference different Plaintiff (2) Karen Traynor, contacted employment, indicating: departments indicated was that When who she was in she (1) that previously difficult that Traynor would not recommend Plaintiff for her past employment conduct; and (3) that Plaintiff's past employment conduct can be described as follows: Ms. Williams' conduct did not always reflect the Agency's values of commitment, caring and collaboration. She was sometimes uncooperative requiring me to make multiple requests before she would take the requested action. Ms. Williams did little to contribute to a positive working environment within the unit. ECF No. 12 ("Calloway"), 1 32; ECF No. 12-5, at 8. Lisa Calloway a 51 year old Caucasian female and "Chief" of the DHS department informed of obtain to hire the part-time details. ECF No. 12-5 11 1, 9-11. but did not share the details reference with all of the panel members due concerns.2 Id. 11 16, check reference results released parties. After such to 20-21. were the negative to confidentiality Pursuant to City policy, "confidentially Plaintiff, of and were not the maintained," available were to third the other ECF No. 12 11 44, 61; ECF No. 12-5, at 12. Clark members was Calloway asked the hiring panel to move on to the next candidate, not employee, the negative reference and she contacted Traynor to more inquiry, seeking reconvened the that Plaintiff stated that the panel hiring had received informed a negative reference, should move on to No. 12 1 49; ECF No. 12-4 1 11. "Candidate Evaluation" panel, form its next choice. and ECF The panel members then signed a indicating that Plaintiff was not being recommended due to employment references, with one panel member writing next to her signature "did not evaluate Applicants references - Applicant was a good fit for position 2 Plaintiff disputes the fact that Calloway contacted Traynor to ask for more details and disputes that Plaintiff's negative reference was not shared with the interview panel due to confidentiality concerns. However, as discussed below, Plaintiff cites to no contrary record evidence, including circumstantial evidence or evidence that would create an inference favorable to Plaintiff. Rather, she merely states that such facts are "Disputed" with no further explanation. ECF No. 17, at 4. Such unsupported Plaintiff's opposition blanket denial to summary judgment fails to advance in any meaningful Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214, 220 (4th Cir. 2014). way. otherwise." ECF No. 12 511 49-50; ECF No. 12-4, at 6. Faith Kinser's application package was then forwarded up through the chain of command Department head, and a Kinser was ultimately approved 60-year-old African American male. by the ECF No. 12 11 55-56; ECF No. 12-5, at 5; ECF No. 12-8. Plaintiff filed the instant civil action in January, 2015, asserting discrimination claims age, and as well as what appears to be a due process claim based on Defendant's failure allow Plaintiff 1. based on her race, gender, to to conduct challenge based on a "name clearing hearing" the negative evaluation. The complaint also claims against a that Plaintiff was "perceived disability" to ECF No. discriminated associated with her being overweight, but it does not provide a legal basis for such allegation nor advance a "cause of action" based on a disability theory. After discovery was summary judgment completed, motion asserting demonstrate that Plaintiff of discrimination, and Defendant filed the instant that the undisputed facts cannot establish a prima facie case that even effectively rebutted such showing. if she could, Defendant has Defendant also argues that Plaintiff's due process claim fails as a matter of law based on the undisputed facts. Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, filed a brief in opposition to summary judgment; brief provides no citation to the record or however, to any such relevant legal authority that would support denying Defendant's Defendant recently filed its reply brief, motion. and with an impending trial date, this matter is ripe for review.3 II. The Federal STANDARD Rules of OF Civil REVIEW Procedure district court "shall grant summary judgment if provide [a] that a movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant Civ. P. dispute is entitled to 56(a). judgment as "[T]he mere between the a matter of existence parties will of not some that there be no genuine v. Liberty Lobby Inc., "material" if it dispute is "genuine" issue of 477 U.S. "might affect if material 242, 247-48 an R. factual otherwise the requirement fact." (1986). the outcome of Fed. alleged defeat properly supported motion for summary judgment; is law." Anderson A fact the suit," is and a "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. at 248. Rule 56(c) addresses the applicable procedure for pursuing, and defending against, summary judgment, explaining as follows: 3 The Court notes that the instant motion was not ripe until October 13, 2015, only fourteen days prior to the scheduled trial date, which resulted in the issuance of this Opinion and Order just days prior to trial. As expressly stated in the Scheduling Order in this case, such late-filing is discouraged. See ECF No. 8 51 9(a) (indicating that "the Court encourages the parties to submit [summary judgment] so that they will be ripe at least 45 days before trial"). motions (c) Procedures. (1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. that " [i]f fact or fails fact as a P. 56(c) (emphasis added). party fails to properly to properly address required by Rule 56(c)," Rule 56 support further states an assertion another party's the Court has of assertion of discretion to "consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion" and to "grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials-including the facts considered undisputed--show that is entitled to it." Although the Fed. R. initial falls on the moving party, Civ. P. the movant 56(e). burden on summary judgment obviously once a movant properly files evidence supporting summary judgment, the non-moving party may not rest upon the mere allegations of the pleadings, but instead must set forth exhibits specific affidavits facts in illustrating Corp. v. Catrett, Auto. Indus, of a 477 U.S. Am., Inc., the form genuine 317, issue 323-24 793 of (1986); F.3d 404, 8 for 408 and trial. sworn Celotex Butler v. (4th Cir. Drive 2015). In other words, while the movant must carry the burden to show the a absence burden is of met, genuine it is up issue to existence of such an issue. referenced above summary judgment the material fact, non-movant Celotex, III. As of to when establish the 477 U.S. at 322-23. DISCUSSION in the Factual Background, motion such is well-supported by Defendant's citations to multiple affidavits, documents associated with Plaintiff's prior DHS documents employment, process, judgment and motion sets specific sworn circumstantial forth a to why Plaintiff was part-time DHS position, including with as well as other record evidence. explanation as through associated affidavits. evidence citations hired to Moreover, demonstrating hiring non-discriminatory and Defendant supports pinpoint 2013 Defendant's summary clear not the in 2013 such explanation direct Defendant the for the evidence, cites absence of to a discriminatory animus at DHS as to age, race, and gender.4 4 Defendant's circumstantial evidence includes the fact that the person hired for the part-time position was nearly 50 years old and was a woman. Additionally, Defendant advances evidence that in April of 2013, the month in which Kinser was hired, six out of ten DHS hires were over 40 (two were over 50) , seven out of ten hires were African American, and nine out of ten were woman. ECF No. 12-3 51 24. As to the "unit" hiring the part-time employee in early 2013, two out of the three employees in such unit were African American women, one aged 60 and the other 58. ECF No. 12 51 72; ECF No. 12-5 51 27. Moreover, Defendant presents evidence that, in April of 2015, the demographics of DHS were as follows: at least 40% of employees were over 40, 73% were African American, and 93% were women. ECF No. 12-9. Having carefully reviewed the record, it is readily apparent that Defendant's well-supported summary judgment motion satisfies Defendant's preliminary burden to demonstrate: that there are no genuine issues of material fact; (2) (1) that the undisputed facts demonstrate that Plaintiff fails to make even a prima facie showing of discrimination on any of the asserted grounds,-5 (3) that even assuming that a prima facie case had been made, Defendant evidence has rebutting nondiscriminatory pointed advanced to no explanation was such reason record direct showing for its evidence pretextual, 5 As argued by Defendant, both and by articulating action" and suggesting Laing v. Fed. circumstantial Exp. Plaintiff that "a has Defendant's Corp., with respect to age and gender, 703 F.3d Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the position was filled by someone outside the protected class, as is ordinarily required in this Circuit, Miles v. Dell, Inc., 429 F.3d 480, 485-86 (4th Cir. 2005), nor does she make the "critical" showing that her non-hiring was "'under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination'" as to any claimed basis, E.E.O.C. v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 243 F.3d 846, 851 n.2 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Texas Dept. of Comty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981)), with the evidentiary record demonstrating an absence of any discriminatory animus based on job applicants being female, over 40, or African American. Additionally, Plaintiff does not contest Defendant's summary judgment arguments asserting that: (1) Plaintiff fails to identify a valid legal basis for asserting a "perceived disability" claim based on her weight (unlike the race, gender, and age discrimination claims, the complaint does not even set forth a "cause of action" based on perceived disability nor does it cite to the ADA or any other legal authority that would support such a theory of recovery); and (2) Plaintiff fails to identify any evidence that could support a jury verdict as to her gender discrimination or "perceived disability" claims. Such uncontested matters are likewise resolved in Defendant's favor. 10 713, 719 (4th Cir. 2013); and (4) that Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a due process right to a "name clearing hearing" to refute no the negative employment evidence indicating that: personnel file that (a) was reference available otherwise disseminated to the public; "stigma" (c) such reference was false. Va. , 480 necessary to F.3d 642, Governors Marshall Univ., As Defendant summary judgment, Plaintiff has set or sworn Celotex, Plaintiff negative, trial has has (b) to third-parties (4th liberty interest claim; Cir. 2007); 447 F.3d 292, Ridpath 308 (4th Cir. advanced question evidence for illustrating 322-24; carried such or the Court a Butler, burden genuine 793 is is v. supporting whether issue easily of 2006). form of F.3d at Bd. exhibits for 408. answered the trial. Whether in the as even with discovery complete and a fast approaching date, transcript, existence Plaintiff or of other a cites form genuine Montgomery, 751 party demonstrate must F.3d no of document, evidence issue 214, 220 that for affidavit, that trial. (4th Cir. a would triable 2014) issue See deposition suggest Wilkins Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 798 11 (4th Cir. the v. ("'The opposing of fact [s]he may not rest upon mere allegations or denials.'" Shaw v. or such reference created forth specific facts in the at is Sciolino v. City of Newport News, properly the affidavits 477 U.S. support a 646-50 there such reference was maintained in a made the because 1994)); E.D. exists; (quoting Va. Loc. Civ. R. 56(B) (requiring that a brief in opposition to summary judgment "shall include a specifically captioned section listing all material facts as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue necessary to be litigated and citing the parts of the record relied on dispute.") law (emphasis added). demonstrating inadequate, and that in primarily consists as a "Disputed" supporting conclusory such discrimination cites chart in claims no case to be in somehow legal law or is standard Plaintiff's brief in opposition citation dispute, support and Plaintiff's complaint is alleged evidence identifying without claimed argument facts Plaintiff also does not cite case Rather, of the Defendant's fact, anywhere in her brief. labels to support any followed of her to facts "verified," process Plaintiff record by Plaintiff's due that evidence limited race and and claim. age While Plaintiff does not cite to any portion of the verified complaint in opposition to summary judgment. The court consider complaint factual occurred. Cf_^ Fed. R. need other consider Civ. P. only materials consists statements 56(c)(3) the in largely broadly cited the of ("Materials Not Cited. materials, record."). legal asserting it Moreover, conclusions that but and may the vague discrimination Plaintiff's brief in opposition to summary judgment, filed after the close of discovery, 12 plainly fails to identify a genuine issue of material fact that could support a jury verdict in Plaintiff's favor as to any of the claims in her complaint.6 IV. For the foregoing judgment civil hereby Clerk to all IT IS SO reasons, GRANTED, action shall be The Order is Defendant's ECF No. 11, removed from the is DIRECTED counsel CONCLUSION of to send a motion and the for summary trial of this Court's calendar. copy of this Opinion and record. ORDERED. /S Mark M£r S. Davis United States District Judge October 9>2> , 2015 Norfolk, Virginia After advancing a merits-based attack to Defendant's gender discrimination claim, Defendant advances an abbreviated, but wellformulated, argument asserting that this Court should not even reach the merits of the gender claim because it was not included in Plaintiff's EEOC "Charge of Discrimination." ECF No. 12-15; see Bryant v. Bell Atl. Maryland, Inc., 288 F.3d 124, 133 (4th Cir. 2002) (concluding that several claims, including a gender discrimination claim, that were not included in the EEOC charge were "barred" from the civil action because "(t]he EEOC charge defines the scope" of the civil suit). Although this Court has limited facts and argument before it regarding the EEOC process, Plaintiff does not refute Defendant's argument on this point, and the Court therefore alternatively dismisses the gender discrimination claim as procedurally barred. 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.
