Hicks v. Carilion Clinic et al, No. 7:2017cv00247 - Document 71 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 3/27/2019. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLE6K'SAT OFROANO FICEtJs.DIsT. GOuR7 . C ,VA FILED IN T H E U N ITE D STATES D ISTRICT CO U RT FO R TH E W E STE RN D IST RICT O F W R GIN IA ROAN OKE DIW SION MA2;72219 I A BYJU : . RQGER E H ICKS, LEM C CLERK . Plaintiff, Case N o.:7:17-cv-00247 V. CM U LION M ED ICAL CEN TER , By: M ichaelF.U tbansld D efendant. ChiefUnited StatesDisttictJudge M EM ORAN D UM OPIN ION Tlliscase com esbefore the courton D efendantCarilion M edicalCenter's tffcnHlion''lmoéonforsllmmaryjudgment,filedon October29,2018.ECF No.57. PlaindffRogerE.I-licksrflqicks')respondedonNovember19,2018,ECF No.61,and Cntilion responded on December3,2018,ECF No.62.JudgeDillon heard argumenton D ecem ber12,2018.ECF N o.66.Forthereasonsstated below,Cntilion'sm odon is GRAN TE D ,allclnim sareD ISM ISSE D ,and thiscaseisST RICK EN ftom theacdve docket. I' Iicksbegan wotking forCnHlion in G uestServicesin 2013,butshortly theteafter Hicks v. Carilion Clinic et al wasmovedtotheMain OpetatingRoom r<OR>')asapetiopetadvetechnician (dTOT'').1 Doc. 71 ECF N o.61-1,at39.Cntilion isan EqualEmploym entEm ployetand prollibitsany type of w orkplaceviolence.ECF N o.57-11,at28.H ickswasaw are ofthisand w asprovided with. 1Specifcally,Hicksworked atCazilion RoanokeM emodalH ospital,a hospitalwitlain theCae on lxm brella.ECF N o.57, at2. Dockets.Justia.com som ettaining concerrling Cltilion'spoliciesprohibidng hatassm entand workplace violence, though the extentand effk acy ofthattrainingisdisputed.zECF N o.61-1,at63-68. ChristopherK uttzwasunitdirectozin them ain operadng room and H cks's immediatesupervisor.ECF No.57-4,at3.Kurtz'sevaluationofI'Iicks'sjobperfo= ance dllting2013and 2014waspositi ve;KIM:I wrotein his2014review thatHicksQonductgedj hitnselfprofessionally,providegdjexcellentpadentcateand gwasjpleasurabletowotkwith.'' ECF No.61-13,at3.Inlanuary2 .015,afterasplitin managementstructurethatputPOTs andperianesthesiatechniciansrTATs'')indifferentbillingandmanagementdepartments, K lltq'masked thatT' Iickscoordinate the PO T schedule.ECF N o.1. I'Iicksclnim sthatthecom plained-ofhatassm entand disctim inadon began with the changein hisposiéon zesponsibio es.ECF N o.1.l'iicktbelievesthe problem sto beracebased and clnim sthatTom m yYetkey,a Catilion PAT who had previously coorHinated the schedulebeforethe splitin depar% ents,wastfoffended by Hicks,ablack m an,taldng his jobdudes.''ECF No.61,at2.Hickstestzeddutinghisdeposidonthatatthistime,noother A fdcan-Am erican had been given extra responsibilidesand lliscow orkershad neverhad a problem with w hite cow orkersreceiving these sortsofresponsibilities.ECF N o.61-1,at38. Iqickstesdfied thataoncehebegan coorclinaéng the schedule,rfallhellbroke loose,and I reallyfeelthatitwasbecauseIwasblack''Ld-aat38,butalso testxed thatno oneever directly told him thatracewasthereason forany dislike,id.a 2W hen askedaboutthelevelofharassm entatzd sensidvitytrnining,N tuseand Carilion employeeShelbyAzaranswered, .* ehavean nnnualin-servicethatwehaveto com pleteon thecomputer;everyemployeeisrequiredto com pletethat aboutharassm entand cliscrim inadon.''ECF N o.61-2,at8. ' 2 I'Iicksclnim sthatlniscow otkersbegan dftenting down''and ffripping up''the paper copiesofthe scheduleshe m ade.ECF N o.61-1,at32.H e testifed thattherewerem any timeswhenhiswllitecoworkersffwenttoChdsltlaf'tmandfabricatedalie,justfornoteason atall...'rhetewere thosetype ofincidentsthatensued.''ECF N o.61-1,at46.H cks tecountsoneincidentw hich involved coworketBeckyRussell,aPAT w ho,aftetan incident in wllich Hickscorrectly idendfied athoracotom y,com plained to Yerkey thatfrthey think they know everytlaing,''and then flled acom plaintagainstI'Iickswith Iilltq+.Ji at49.I-licks . assum ed thatfTthey''teferred to African-Am ericansbecause hewastheonly African- AmericanPOT and Tftl'leonlyblack person ofthesecrewsthatwasin school.''IZ at52. H cksadnnitled thatRussellneversaid anything thatexplicitlyindicated herresentm entwas race-based buttesdfiedthatshenevermadesuch remarksaboutawhitePOT.I. I. L Severaldisdnctincidents,howevet,ate alleged in thecom plaintand docum ented by Cntilion em ploym entrecords'.SeeECF N o.1.The firstofthese occutted in D ecem ber2014 whenllickswaspushedbyaCaucasiancoworker,PaulffAlex''Perdue,justafterI'Iickshad returned to w otk aftertaking leave forback surgery.1d.at3;ECF N o.61-1,at58.I-licksand corroborating witnessY ussefM usa clnim thatthe discussion leading to the incidentfocused on footballbutdevolved into Perdue calling H icksffRogerDicks''and I-Iicksshowicg his idendfkadon badge to Perdue to convince Petdue to use the correctnam e.ECF N o.61-1,at 58;ECF N o.57-7,at2.Perduewasterm inated following an invesdgadon into the event. ECF N o.57-4,at6-7. In eatly Augustof2015,H ickshad anotheraltercadon,tllisHm ewith D arrylPerry,a PAT.ECF No.61-1,at98.Johnlohnson,anAfdcan-Amedcan ClinicalTeam Leader,and Bryan Hodges,anotherPAT,b0t.hwitnessed theevent.J-I. LHickswaswalking down the hallway and had forgotten to wearllisO R hat.JI Jz.W henlohnson pointed thisoutto him . ' and rerninded him to puthishaton,I'Iicksclnim sPerry called him rfan idiot''and a fffucking % e faggot.''1d.H odgesand Perry,on the otherhand,clsim ed in em ailssentto m anagerBilly BelchetthatI'lickshad called Petryan idiot,and thatI-lickshad a historyofaggtessive, unprofessionalbehavior.ECF N o.57-11,at33-35.I-ticksreported theincidentto Belcher ion.3ECF N o.61-1,at and lefta m essage on rf7-safe,''an anonym oushotlinçused atCs3t-ill 76.H eclnim ed heteceived no tesponse.Id.ln llisdeposition,I-licksadnaitted thatthe tetm s Ttidiot''and fffaggot,''while ofcourse offensive,atetace-neuttal.1d.at71. On August24,2015,I-lickssentan em ailto Carilion CEO N ancy Agee reporting that hewasexperiencing harassm ent;theem ailm entioned theincidentwith D arrylPerry directly. ECF N o.61-22.Seealso ECF N o.61-9,at7.Agee forwarded thisletterto H eather Shepardson,theVicePresidentofHum an Resources,who sentitto H R ConsultantN aom i Powets.ECF N o.61-22.On February 10,2016,Hickssentanotherem ailto Agee,again asking forassistance.ECF N o.61-9,at8.The end resultofthese com plnintswasthatIqicks wastransferred from w eekday shiftsto weekend slliftsto avoid futtzreptoblem swit.h coworkèrs.ECF N o.61-1,at189.Thiswasa largely posidve change- the transferwas accom pal ed by apay increase and seem ed to resolve I-Iicks'sworkplacecom plaintsfor severalm onths.ECF N o.61-1,at187. 3' Lsafeis% hotlinetlzat(employeesqcalland(jreportsafetyconcems,anysot'tofuntowazdg)behaviorofaphysician orenvironmentalsafetyconcerns,equipmentfailureconcems,(and)emplpyeebehavior...youleaveamessage. ''ECFNo. 61-2,at6. 4 Onluly22,2016,I'IickshadaEnalaltezcadonwithPhilipMuse,anAfzicanAmericanPOT.ECF No.61-1,at145-46.I-licksallegesthathewasspeakingwithlohnson aboutacasew hen M useheatd hisnam e m entioned in the course oftheconversadon.LdaAt . thispoint,I-licksclnim sthatM use said,to on'tletm e hearyou speak m y nam e outofyou. r mouth,bitchassn****r.''Ll. laMusedenieshavingmadethiscomment,andlohnsondenies having heard it.ECF N o.57-2,at89ECF N o.57-10,at2.Anotheralleged confrontadon occtered laterthatday;Muse'reportedto KtutzthatI-licksthreatenedto ffknock ghimloutin theparking1otat7 pm .''ECF No.57-11,at10.Fourindivibualssentemailstatem ents regarcling eitherone or130th ofthese confrontadonsstadng thatI'licksw asthe aggtessor. ECF N o.57-11,at10-16. I'Iickswassuspended and escorted offthepropetty following thisincidenton Cntilion'sbeliefthatthetew asa fTvery good chance''thatHicks'sthreatsagainstM usewete serious.ECF N o.57-11,at2.Powetsconducted an itw esdgadon,forwhich sheinterdewed Hicksand six otherem ployees.SeeLd. ,aat73-78.Powersconcluded thatI-licksw asthe inségatoroflloth confrontadons.1d.at78.N o oneinterviewed dllting thisitw esdgadon otherthan Iqicksclsim ed to haveheardM useusearacialslur.Seeidaat73-78.Stephen Lovern,SeniorDirectorofO peradng Room Services;G ary Schotq llissuperior;and Shepardson allm ade the decision to terminateIqicks.ECF N o.57-5,at8. II. Pursuantto FederalRuleofCivilProcedure56(a),thecourtmustffgrantsummary judgmentifthemovantshowsthatthereisnogenlAitnedisputeastoanymatetialfactand themovantisentitled to judgmentasamatteroflam ''Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a);CelotexCo .v. 5 Cattett,477U.S.317,322(1986);Glnnv.EDO Co .,710F.3d209,213(4thCit.2013). W hen m aking thisdeternainadon,tlzecotlrtshould consider fftlze pleadings,deposidons, answerstointerrogatories,and adrnissionson file,togetherwith...ganyjaffdavits''flled by thepatdes.Celotex,477U.S.at322.W hethetafactism atetialdependson thetelevant substandvelaw.Andetsonv.Libe Lobb Inc.,477U.S.242,248(1986).Tfonlydisputes overfactsthatrnkhtaffecttheoutcomeofthesuitunderthegoverlnglaw w: illptoperly precludetheentryofsummaryjudgment.Factualdisputesthatareittelevantotunnecessary willnotbecounted.''1d.(citadon omitted).Themovingpartybearstheiniéalbutden of dem onstraéng theabsenceofagenuineissue ofm aterialfactand m ay ptevailby showing ffan absence ofevidence to support''an essentialelem entofthe nonm oving party'scase. Celotex,477 U .S.yt323.Ifthatbutden hasbeen m et,thenonm oving partym ustthen com e forwatd w1t. 11specihcm aterialfactsthatprovethereisagenlline disppte fortrial.M atsushita Elec.Indus.Co.v.ZenithRadioCo .,475U.S.574,586-87(1986). In determ ining whethetagenlxineissue ofm aterialfactexists,the courtviewsthe factsand dtawsallreasonableinferencesin thelightm ostfavorableto thenonm oving patty. G-l y= ,710F.3dat213(citingBondsv.Leavitt,629F.3d369,380(4thCir.2011)).Although . fftheevidenceoftlzenommovantistobebelieved,andalljusdfableinferencesaretobe drawn itzllisfavor,'''M cAitlaids Inc.v.Iom berl -clark Co .,N o.13-2044,2014 W L 2871492,at*1 (4th Cir.2014)(internalalteration omitted)(citingTolanv.Cotton,134S.Ct. 1861,1863 (2014)@erclxHnmll,ffgtlhemereexistenceofascinti llaofe' videncein supportof the (nonmovant'sjpositionwillbeinsufficient''to overcomeslnmmaryjudgment.Anderson, 477 U .S.at252.Rather,agenuineissue ofm aterialfactexistsonly ffifthere issufhcient 6 evidencefavoringthenonmovingpartyforajurytoreturn averdictforthatpatty.''Res. BanksharesCo .v.St.PaulM erc Ins.Co.,407F.3d631,635(4thCir.2005)(quoting Anderson,477U.S.at249).fflnotherworés,tograntsummaryjudgmenttherclourtmust detetminethatnoreasonablejurycould:ndforthenonmovingpartyontheevidence beforeit.''Mossv.ParksCo .,985F.2d736,738(4thCir.1993)(citingPeriniCo .v. PeriniConst.,lnc.,915F.2d 121,124(4th Cir.1990)). 111. I' Iicksbringstvo countsin laisComplaintpursuantto42U.S.C.j1981andTitleVII oftheCivilRightsActof1964,42U.S.C.j2000e.ECF N o.1.ColmtlisaCbim forRace D isctim ination,allegm ' g thatCntilion ffdisctim inated againstplaindffin violadon offederal law in thatgfytilionl: (a) classihedplaindffon thebasisofhisrace; (b)disctiminated agninstpbindffwith tespecttotheterms,condidons,orprivileges ofem ploym entbecause ofhisrace; (c)pe= itted awork environmentto existatdefendants'facilitythatwastacially offensive and hosd e to A frican-Am erican workers,including plnindff; (d)hatassedandretaliatedagainstplaintiffbecauseoflniszaceandforcomplnining aboutdefendants'(Iisctim inatorypracdces;and (e)te= inatedplnirtiff'semploymentbecauseofpbindff'srace.'' Id.at4-5.Count11bringsa Cl/im forRetaliatoryD ischargeand aEegesthatCarilion fu sctim inated againstplaindffin violadon offedetallaw in thatdefendantsharassed and retaliated againstplaintiffand term inated lzisem ploym entforcom plaii ng aboutthe harassm entand hostilework environm entin violaéon ofTitle V11ofthe Civilm ghtsActof 1964...'1Id.at8-9. Inthesetwocounts,thereseem tobetht'eepotentialclnims:(1)hostilework environment(CountI);(2)tacialdisctiminationthtoughadverseemploymentacdon(Count 1);and(3)retaliadontcount11).ECF No.1,atzI-9.Iqicksfailstomakeashowingthata reasonable facto dercould find forhim on any ofthese three clnim s,forthereasons explained below . A. Thestandazdusedtoevaluateatacialhostilewozkendtonmentclaim undetj1981is thesameasthatusedundetTitleV11.42U.S.C.A.j1981;42U.S.C.A.j2000e;Freemanv. Dal-TileCo .,750F.3d 413,427 n.7 (4th Cir.2014).To surviveslzmmaryjudgmenton a cleim ofaraciallyhostileworkenvitonment,pbinéffmustshow thatareasonablejurycould findtheharassmentwas:(1)unwelcome;(2)basedonrace;(3)suffcientlysevereor pervasivetoaltettheconditionsofemploymentandcreateanabusiveatmosphere;and(4) known to the em ployerw ho failed to takeeffectiveaction to stop it.E.E.O .C.v.Xerxes CP-T.,639F.3d658,669(4thCit.2011).Indecidingwhetheranemployethascreatedan . abusiyew orldng envitonm ent,the courtm ustexam ineallthe citcllm stances,inclucling the frequency ofthe disctim inatory conduct,itsseverity,whethetitwasphysically threatening or hum iliadng,orm etely an offensive uttetance,and w hetheritunreasonably intetfered with an employee'sworkpetfotmance.Bo er-Libertov.Fontainebleau Co .,786F.3d264,277 (4th Cir.201$. Hickshasprovided m ote than sufficientevidencethatthe behaviorhe faced at Carilion w asunw elcom e,buttherecord isconflicted asto whethezany ofthe alleged harassm entwasbased on race.O fthe incidentsI-licksreports,only oneinvolvesan explicitly race-based sltu- ldicks'scontention thatM use called him a fKbitch assn****r.?'The other incidentsm ake no m ention oftace,butthison itsown doesnotbarareasonable fact-finder 8 from concluding theyw ere,in fact,m otivated by racialanim us.SeeM aztin v.M etck & Co., Inc.,446F.Supp.2d 615,629 (W.D.Va.2006)(exnminingthecontextinwhic' h two incidentsofharassm entthatm ade no m endon ofraceoccutred and Ending thata teasonablefact-findetcould condudetheseincidentswetebased on tace).Thecokutm ay exam ine the sturounding circum stancesoftheseincidents,including thetim e petiod in which theyoccurred,theindividualsinvolved,and how areasonableperson mkhtintemret whatwassaidand done.J. i I-licks'sexplanadon forthesedifhculties,how ever,iscontested by m any ofllis cow orkers.M ore than one fellow Cntilion em ployee described Ilicksasaggressive and angry. M usestatedthatI'Iickswasffmean''andwouldreferio othersasdfdumb.''ECF N o.57-2,at 4-5.O ther,lesspotentially biased individualsalso reported behavioralissueswith Hicks. Johnson,someoneofwhom I-licksthoughthigllly and trusted,ECF No.61-1,at23,stated thathewitnessed I'Iickshave conflictswith coworkersbutneversaw anything thatled him to believetheproblemswererace-based,ECF No.51-10,at1.Instead,lohnson testzed thathehad heard H ickscallcow orkersTfdum b''and dfsttzpid,''and thatI-licksffseem ed angry, like hehad aclaip on llisshotzlder.''1d. W hileRussell,in rem arking thatTdthey''think they know everything,m ade no explicit m entbn ofrace,the cout'thndsthata reasonable facto dercould perhapsconclude by a prepondezance ofthe evidencethatthiswasarace-based com m ent,dueto thecontextin wllich itoccutred.The derogatory wordsPerryisalleged to haveused are,asCarilion points outand Iqicksconcedes,race-neutral,butcontextand pastexpedencewith acow orkercan coloranyexchange,and Tçgflaciallyneutralincidentsm aybesufhcienttoestablish ahosie 9 work environm entcbim ''ifthereisffsom e circllm stanéalorothetbasisforinferting that incidentsthatategtacej-neuttalon theirfacewerein factdiscHminatory.''Flemin v. MaxMaraUSA,Inc.,644F.Supp.2d247,262-63(E.D.N.Y.2009).GrandngHicksan assum péon ofcredibilityand m alting allreasonable inferencesin hisfavor,areasonable factO dercouldperhapsconcludethatPerrfscommentsweteraciallymoivated,giventhe racialm ake-up ofthe staff,the shiftin H cks'szole,and the pastincidentsalleged.SeeECF No.61-5,at3X ckswastheonlyAfrican-AmericanPOT besidesMuse);ECF No.61-1,at 238g-licksneverheardPerrycallawlliteemployeeaTffaggot''oranffidiof);idaat32(othez employeestoredown Iqicks'sschedules);Ld.sat49(RussellcomplainingtoYerkey). O fcourse,the alleged use ofthe slur<<n****z''isundoubtedly zace-based.See McFinestv.GTE ServiceCo .,360F.3d1103,1116(9thCir.2014)rfltisbeyondquesdon thattheuse ofthew otd fn****F ishighly offensive and dem eaning,evoking ahistory of racialviolence,brtztality,and subotdination.').Theword isperhapsthesingleEnglish word m ostpardctzlatly Kfexpressive ofzacialhatred and bigotrp''Swinton v.Potom ac Co .,270 F.3d794,817(9thCit.2001).CarilionpointsoutthatMusedenieshavingeversaidanything likewhatH cksalleges,ECF No.57-2,at8,and thatlohnson,whowitnessed theentite event,cotroborateshisaccount,ECF No.57-10,at2 gohnson statesin l'sisafhdavit,ç<Atno Hm e dudng the altercation between M use and FIicksdid IheatM use callI-licksany racially derogatory nsm e,including Tbitch assn****z.'Iflhad heard thatterm ,Iw ould have reported itto H llm an Resourcesand putitin theattached e-m ailsdescribingwhatIsaw and heard.'l.Cnrilion also atguesthatM usehimselfisAfrican-Amedcan,and tlmseven assum ing the eventoccutzed asIqickscbim s,itlikely wasnotm odvated by I'Iicks'srace. ECF N o.57,at21.C/tilion citesto Curriev.0 th1. 1:,N o.1:11-cw=892,2012W L 1715390,at *4(E.D.Va.May15,2012),inwhichtheplnindffclnimedthatawatetmelonwithaholeinit lefton llisw ork stadon by an A frican-Am erican coworkerconsdtuted an incidentofrace- basedharassment.Thecourtexpresseddoubtastowhetheranyjurycotlldftndthata waterm elon leftby oneA fdcan-Am erican on the desk ofanotherA frican-Am erican was racially m odvated.Id. InTownev.Eisner,245U.S.418,425(1918),JusdceHolmeszemarkedthatffgaj wotd isnota crystal,transparentand unchanged,itisthe sk' in ofaliving thoughtand m ay varygteatlyin colorand contentaccorcling to thecitcl'm stancesand the Hm ein w llich itis used.''Atleastonecourthas,however,tefused to supportan em ployerwho took acdon againstawlliteemployee foruse ofthew otd (<n****r''whiletaking no acdon against African-Am erican em ployeesforuseofthe sam e.SeeButlin ton v.N ewsCo .,759 F. Supp.2d580,597(E.D.Penn.2010).FoM nately,thecourtneednotwadeintothisthotny, histodcally-loaded,and potenéallyinflam m atoryissue.l'Iicks'sfailureto provide enough ofa showing thatthe hatassm entalleged wassuffkiently sevezeand pervasiveorthatCarilion wasnegligentin itscontrolofthewotkplace environm entm andatesthe dismissalofthis clnirn. 'I'hefffsevezeorpervasive'elementofahatassmentcbim hasbothasubjecdveandan objecdvecomponent.''Harrisv.Forklif'tS s.Inc.,510U.S.17,21-22 (1993).To detetmine ifawo'rkenvironmentwasobjecdvelyhostile,thecourtmustlooktothetotalityofthe circum stances,inclucling the frequency ofthe disctim inatoryconduct,itsseverity,whetherit isphysicaEy threaterling othllm iliating zathetthan am ere offensiveutterance,whetherit 11 unreasonably interfetesw1t. 14work perform ance,and whatpsychologicalhnt. m resulted.See H arris,510 U .S.at21-239Connerv.Schrader-Bzid e ortlnt'l Inc.,227 F.3d 179,193(4th Cir.2000).Tllisstandatdisafqdemancling'?one.Fara her,524U.S.775,788 (1998).Nooneisguaranteedfftefinementandsoplzisdcadon''intheitinteracdonsatwork. Mntfinv.Merck& Co.,446F.Supp.2d615,628-29(W.D.Va.200$.Rather,theyare protected only from fTharassing behaviorthatisso severe orpervasiveasto renderthe workplaceobjecévely hosdleorabusive.''Hartsellv.Du 1exProds.Inc.,123F.3d766,773 (4thCir.1997). Hicks'sdesczipdon oftheCarilion work environm entisfarftom ideal.The record m akesclearthatI-Iickshad issueswith nllm erouscoworkers.Even ifLIicks'saccountis accepted in f'ull,however,theseincidentsarenotsufhciently severeotpervasive to alterthe condiuonsofem ploym entand create ahostilework environm ent.I' Iicksworked atCstilion forapproxim ately threeyears.SeeECF N o.61-1,at39.The alleged hatassm entdid not begin until2015,m ore than a yearafterhewashired.SeeECF N o.1.A fterthispointa I' Iicks'scomplaintmendonsthteespecihcconfrontadons:(1)Perduepushinghim aftera conversationaboutsports;(2)Perrycallingllim anff icliot'?andaTffaggot'';and(3)M use calling him a Ttbitch-assn****r.''See enerall ECF N o.1.Besidesthese,Hickstecounts instancesofcoworkersfabricadng com plaintsagninstlnim and Russellcom plaining to Yerkey that'ftlaey''think they know everything in a convetsadon thatwasoverheard by I' Iicksbutwasnotm eantto includehim .M aking alllogicalinferencespossible. in H cks's favor(asthecourtmustinaslnmmaryjudgmentapalysis),threedirectconfrontations,one overheatd conversadon,and complaintsmadeoutofHicks'spresencethat(so farasthe record shows)resulted in nonegatiVeemploymentconsequencescannotbefound sufhciently severe orpervasiveto form thebasisofa hostilework envitonm entcbim .See ECF No.61-1,at55 (HickstestzesthatKUttZdidnotdisciplinehim in anywayfollowing Russell'scomplnint).See e..Hopkinsv.BaltimoreGasand Elec.Co.,77F.3d 745,753 (4thCit.1996)((fA handfulofcommentsspteadovetmonthsislmlikelytohavesogteatan emodonalimpactasaconcenttated otincessantbaztage.');Mustafav.lancu,313F.Supp. 3d684,695(E.D.Va.2018)(fcokutshavetoutinelynotedthatwhete,ashete,theazeged harassm entinvolvesisolated or scattered incidentsoccutring overthe course ofsevetal m onths,the conductisnotpervasive enough to statea clsim forhosdlework environment.');Sonnierv.DiamondHealthcareCo .,114F.Supp.3d.349,357(E.D.Va. 2015)(holdingthatthreeinstancesofhatassmentwithin atwomonthperiodisffreladvely infrequentlj''). O neofthekey factorsin thisanalysisishow m any ofthese alleged incidentswete noteven directed atHicksand occutred outsideofltispresence.zfTake Hicks'scomplaint tegarcling Russell'sdiscussion w1t.11Yerkey ofhow ffthey believe they know everything''- while the conversadon concerned I'licks,hewasnotapardcipantin itand nothing said was directedathim.ECF No.61-1,at52.Second-handharassment,whileobjecdonableand unpleasant,islessconcerningin aTitleV IIcontextthan directinstancesofaggression. M nttin,446F.Supp.2d at629.W llitev.FederalEx .Co .,939F.2d 157,160(4th Cir. 1991),dealtwithaclnim ofaraciallyhostileworkenvitonm entbased on oneincidentof racially offensiverem arksexchanged by black and whiteem ployees,conflictszegarding 4HicksclnimsitzhiscomplaztthatYergerfftulkeddownaboutgHicksjtogllicks's)subozdinates.''ECFNo.1,at3. m usic selection,allegadonsthatblack em ployeeswereadm onished to return to work when wllite em ployeeswere not,and allegaéonsofunequaladvancem entforblack and wlaite em ployees.Thecolzrtnoted thatm ostofthese incidentsw ere notdirected againstthe plnindffand foundno causeofaction fotazaciallyhosdleenvironment.LdaOthercotzrts havealsozejectedclaimsofahosélewozkene onmentaftetexlminingincidentsofindirect hatassm ent.M atlin,446 F.Supp.2d at629,fotm d thatthreeplaindffscould notshow theit work envitonm entto bç tacially hosl eafterobserving thatseveralofthesixteen incidents reported werenotdirected atthe plainéffs,and som ew ere noteven witnessed.D iscussions . and com plaintsthattake placebelzind som eone'sback m ightm ake thei. tway back to that personandaffecthisexperiencein theworkplace,butthisisobjecdvelylessseverethan insultsand actsofaggression m ade faceto face.SeeW hite,939 F.2d at1609M ardn,446 F. Supp.2d at629. Besidesthis,none ofthealleged harassm entcam efrom supervisotsorm anagersat Cntilion.SetECF No.61-1(noneoftheincidentsrecountedbyHicksitwolvedany individualabovehim ontheCstilionemploymentllieratchy).fflnmeaslltingthesevedtyof harassing conduct,the statusoftheharasserm ay bea signifcantfactory''since <<a superdsor'spowerand authorityinvestsl' lisorherharassing conductw1t.1, 1apatécular threateningcharactet''Sonnierv.Diamond HealthcareCom.,114 F.Supp.3d 349,356 (4th Cir.2015).Hickshadconfrontadonsandnegadveintetacdonswith severalindividualsat Carilion,butallw ereeitheron a sim ilarnm g on the em ploym enthierarchy orin adifferent depattmentthathad noinfluenceoverhisemployment.SeeECF No.61-1 (Russell,Yerkey, and PerdueweteallPATS,and Musewasafellow PO'l).Thefactthatnoneoftlaese individualswielded professionalpower overHicksrenderstheseinstanceslesssevere and heightenstheshowing I'Iicksm ustm ake to show ahosdlew ork environm ent- a showing H ickshasnotm ade.SeeSonnier,114 F.Supp.3d at356. Finally,I'Iicksfailsto show thatCatilion did nottakeacdon to haltand preventracial hrassm ent.W hen a plaintiffishazassed by co-workersratherthan am anagerora supervisoz,an em ployerm ay only be held liable ifthatem ployerTfw asnegligentin contzolling working condidons.''Bo er-Liberto,786 F.3d at278.Ifan em ployerknew or should haveknown abouthatassm entand failed to take effecdveacdon to stop it,that em ployerbecom esliable fottheharassm ent.ld.If,however,an em ployertakesacdon and theacéon causestheharassmentto cease,then theemployerrsliabilityends.M clunne v. G4SGov'tSols..Inc.,179F.Supp.3d609,625(W.D.Va.2016). The recotd show sthatCarilion took action following H cks'scom plaintsregatding race-based hrassm ent.AfterI' Iickswaspushed by Pezduein D ecem ber2014,Klxtq'm quesdoned Llicks,Petdue,and num erousotherwitnessesto theincidentin hiscapacity asa m anager.ECF N o.57-4,at6-7.Perduew assenthom e on suspension im m ediately,pending theresultsoftheinvesdgadoninto theconfrontadon.LdaW hileIqicksreceived aTfwdtten perfo= anceimprovementdiscussion''forwhatwitnessesdescdbed asTfviolating (Perdue'sj personalspacel''with hisemployeebadge,Pezduewasftred aftettheinvesdgadon concluded thathe had com m itted aphysicalactofviolencein thew orkplace.Ld=Cqti lion'stesponseto . theincidentwasprom pt,thozough,and effective,and thuscannotbe deem ed negligent.See Bonenber erv.Pl outh T .,132F.3d20,26 (31d Cir.1997)(statingthatan employer's zem edialacdonsinsulateitfrom liabilityifthey are ffreasonably calculated''to prevent furtherharassrnent). A fterI-Iicks'sconftontadon w1t. 11Perry in August2015,Cstilion again conducted an invesdgaéon and received differing accounts.H icksclnim ed Perry called him an dfidiot''and afffuckingfaggot''withoutanyprovocadon.lohnsonandBryanHodges,anotherPAT who witnessed theevent,b0th em ailed theirm anagezBitlyBelcherand stated thatI' Iickshad calledPetryanidiot.Employetacdontakentotemedycomplaintsofharassmentarejudged underthe citcum stancesofthe hatassm entand the com plaint,H ennem an v.Airtzan Airwa s,705F.Supp.2d1012,1034(E.D.W is.2010),andunderthesecircllmstances, Cntilion had no clea. rindication ofwho wasatfatzltfortheincident. I-licksclnim ed to have com plained m otethan onceofracialhatassm entbutteceived no zesponse,and so finally com plained ditectly to CEO A gee.5ECF N o.61-22.Tl'lisem ail wassentA ugust24,2015,threew eeksaftezlniscom plaintsto H R ConsultantPowersand lzis 7-safecall.Id.Itwasimm ediately forwarded to Shepardson andPowers.IZ Shepardson com m enced an investigadon into Hicks'scom plaintsthatincluded interviewing two A fricanAm erican em ployeesasto whetherthey had experienced racialissues.ECF N o.57-11,at71. Theinvesdgadon found no evidenceoftace-basedharassm ent.J-I. LThecolzttcannotagree thata thtee-week delay between complaintand acdon consdtutesnegligence.N eithercan the colzrtagree thatan acdon taken wasinsufficientsim ply because I-Iicksdid notagreewit.h the endresult.<T(Ajgood-faithitw esdgatbn ofalleged harassm entm aysadsfythe...response 5H icksm adea7-safecallreport ingbeinghatassed and speciEcallyrecounG ghisincidentwithPerryonAugust7,2015. ECF N o.61-32. standatd,even iftheinvesdgation tutnsup no evidenceofhatassm ent...''H atdsv.L&T, W in s lnc.,132F.3d978,984(4thCir.1997). N evertheless,H ickssentanotherem ailto Agee six m onthslatet,on Februry 9, 201f.ECF N o.61-21.Following this,Hickswas switched to weekend slzifts,6which seem ed to end tlw alleged harassm entfotsevezalm onths.ECF N o.57-4,13-14.Catilion m anagets continued to check in w ith H icksfollowing the change;See ECF N o.57-11,at21 & 68 (doctzmenéngmessagesandmeetingswit.hI-licksfollowingthechangeinwotkschedule). Jlicksexpetience no futthersignificantdifficultiesun1 hislastaltercadon with M use. FolloNving thisconftontaéon,Catilion againstresponded with an im m ediateitw estigatbn . tlùtinvolved interdew swith H icks,M use,and allotherwim esses.ThatI'Iicksdid notagree with the tesultagain doesnotlead to theconclusion thatCarilion w asnegligent.H ards,132 F.3d at984.N othing in Carilion'shandling ofthesituation indicatesitfailed to show due careitlcontrolling itsown work envitonm ent. * Forthereasonsexplained above,Hicksfailsto m akeaptim afacie case ofahosi e w ork envitonm entunderTitleV11. B. To establish a ptim a faciecaseofTitleVIIracialdiscrim inaéon,I-licksm ustshom (1)membershipinaprotectedclass;(2)sadsfactoryjobperformance;(3)adverse employmentacdon;and (4)differenttrea% entfrom similarlysittzatedemployeesoutsidethe protected class.Sandersv.TilcrasTechnolo SoludonsCo oradon,725 Fed.App'x 228, 6According to therecord ofam eedng conducted on M arch 7,2016,preparedbyStephen Lovem ,Rogerhad'fchosen to worktheweekend shiftsothpthedoesnothaveto dealwith someofthepersonalitiesthatheO dsdifhculttowork with.''ECF N o.61-24. 230(4th Cit.2018).UnderTitleVIl,I'ticksmaymaketlnisshowingw1t.11directandindirect evidenceofanim usottluough thebutden-shifting fram ework ofM cD onnellD ou 1asCo v.Gteen,411U.S.792(1973)(theffM cDonnellDouglasframework').UndertheMcDonell D ouglasfram ework,an em ploym entdisctim ination plaindffhastheiniéalburden of producéon.Mitchellv.DataGeneralCo .,12F.3d1310,1315(4thCir.1993).Ifsuch a plnintiffbringsproducesinpirectevidencethatestablishesa ptim a facie case of discHm ination,a ptesum pdon in favotoftheexistence oftheunlawfuldisctim inaéon arises and the burden ofptoducdon shiftsto theem ployerto ardculate alegitbm ate, nondiscrim inatoryreason fortheadverseem ploym entaction.St.M ary'sH onorCenterv. H cks,509U.S.502,507(1993).Assllmingtheemployerproducessuch areason,theburden shiftsback,to theplaindffto show thatthisreason ispretexm al.ida Overthe course ofI' Iicks'sem ploym entatCariEon,only two em ploym entacdons could potendally qualifyasffadvetse.''The flrstwashistransfetfrom weekday shiftsto weekend shifts,in response to hiscom plnintsregarding harassm entfrom hisfellow em ployees.The second wasllisevenm alterminadon.The couttwilladdresseach acdon in tarn. Priorto I' licks'stetm inadon,the only change in hisem ploym entwasa m ove to the w eekend sllift.A sdiscussed aboye,thechangewasm ade following I'Iicks'sinidalcom plnints ofharassm entand wasintended to rem ovethepotenialforfutare conflicts.Tllischangein scheduleacttzally resulted in Hicksreceiving agreaterhourly wage.W hen asked aboutthe change dudng llisdeposiéon,Hicksagreed thatthe reassignm entw asaposidve development.ECF No.61-1,at190g-licksreferdngto theweekend shiftsas<<ablessing'). LIicks'sreassigmnentto theweekend slliftcannotserve therole offfan adverse em ploym ent action''in aprim afacie case forracialdisctim inadon.W agstaffv.City ofD urham ,233 F. Supp.2d739,746(f<A fcleartrendofauthority'holdsthataYansferthatdoesnotinvolvea dem odon in fot'm orsubstancegjcannotriseto thelevelofamateriallyadverse employmentacdon.''')(citaéonsomitted). I-licks'sem ploym entterm inadon,on the otherhand,w asclearly an adverse em ploym entacdon.A sstated above,once aplaindffin aTitleVIIracialdisctim inadon acéon ptesentsa prim a faciecase,theburden shiftsto Cnrilion to ardculate alegitim ate, nondiscrim inatoryreason forthe advetse em ploym entacdon.H illv.Lockheed M artita Lo 'sdcsM t.lnc.,354F.3d277,285(4thCit.2004).Thisisaburden ofproducdon,not persuasion,and onceitism et,Iqicksm ustshow by apreponderanceofthe evidence thatthe stated reason isnotsincere,buta pretextfordisctim ination.Id.Carilion arguesthatHicks cannotshow differentttea% entftom sim ilarly situated em ployeesoutside the protected class,poinéng to thetermination ofPerdue afterhepushed I'Iicks.E CF N o.62,at6. Carilion also atgt 'zesthatHickswasnotofferingsadsfactoryjob performancebecauseoflais confrontadon with M use and otherdifficuléeswith coworkers.ECF N o.'57,at16. RegardlessofwhethetH-icksm ade aptim a facieshowing,I-licks'sclaim failsbecause Carilion hasoffered a legitim ate,non-disctim inatory,and non-pretexm alreason forH ck's te= inadon. Asrecounted,Iqicks'stefvninadon occurred afterllisJuly22incidentswith M use, dlatingw hich threewitnessesclnim ed Iqicksthreatened M use,and lateranotherwitness clnim ed I' Iicksconfronted and threatened M use again.Following these episodes,I'licksw as suspended and escorted offcom pany propertp H R ConsultantPowersinvesdgated the incidentsand interdewed Iqicksand six otherem ployees.Based on theinvesdgation,Powers concluded thatIqickshad been theaggressor.SetniorDirectorLovern consulted wit.h llis superior G G Scottand VicePresidentShepardson.Thedecision wasm adethatHicks reptesented apotenéalsafetyrisk and thushisem ploym entneeded to beterm inated. Theconclusion thatIqickshad violated Cntillon'sworkplaceviolence policy representsalegitim ate,non-cliscriminatoryreason fotdischarge.H olland v.W ash.H om es, lnc.,487F.3d208,216-17(4th Cir.2007)tfttingsomeoneforthreateningbehaviorisa legitimate,non-disctiminatoryreason fortermination).I-licksoffersnoreason tobelievethis explanadon ispretexm al;nothing in the record suggeststhatLovern,Scotq orShepardson didnotbehevethatLlicksrepresentedapotendalsafetydsk.Seeidzat213rflplaindffj ptesented no evidencethatcould show thatgdefendant's)legitim ateprofferedreason for flringghimjwasdisingenuous...'?).Hicksfailstodefeatsummaryjudgmentunde. rthe M cD onnellD ou 1aspretextfram ework. C. CountTwo failsbecause Carilion hasoffeted anon-discHm inatoryreason fotV cks's discharge,andM ckshasfailedtooffezsufûcienteddencefozareasonablejurytoconclude thereason waspretextual.TheM cD onnellD ou lasfzam ewozk desczibed above appliesto 130th race cliscrim inadon cbim sand retaliatory discharge cbim s.Foster,787 F.3d at249. J Pow ers'sinvesdgaéon into M cks'sconfrontation with M use m akesperfectly plain the teasonsforwlzich Carilion fued I'Iicks.ECF N o.57-11,at73-78.Powersstatesin her slnmmaryoftheitw eségadon that('itwasstated by fou. rwitnessesthatgl-licks)wasthe aggzessorandwasloud and V M useq'sface,''andthatTftheseallegadonsfollow apattetn of gflicksl'sbehaviorwitnessed in othersituadonsinwhich gl-licksjhasbeen itwolvedinthe past.Id.at78.The decision to tetm inate Hicks'sem ploym tntwasm ade dueto theresultsof tlnisitw esdgadon.ECF N o.57-5,at8.O fparticularconcern to Lovern in m alung the decision to ftzeH ckswasfftlzethreatofviolence''- hewenton to tesdfy,ffAny tim e thereis apotenéalsafetyissue...1can'ttrtzstthatyou gjatenotgoing to do thatagain,and1can't putmy patientsatrisk.''Id.at7-8. I-licksarguesagninstCarilion'sasseréon ofalegitim ate reason forterm inadon by saying thatCntilion suspended Idicksrathqrthan M usebecause M use had neverm ade atace discHm ination com plaintand thatCnrilion f<nevereven had a m eeting to decidewhatto do aboutthe em ployeew ho called Llicksa bitch assn****r.''ECF N o.61,at25.Hicksgoeson to cbim thatfçthe alleged fviolence'iscom ical''becauseffH icks...nevertouched M use,nevet m etin theparlring lot,no one called thepolice,and PIicksdid nothing to try to stop M use from going to theoffke.''1d.N oneofthisreflectson Cntilion'spercepdon oftheincident between llicksand M use.W hatm attershereisnotthett' uth otfalsityofCarilion'sbelief thatM ckswastheaggressor,butthatCarilion sincerely held tlzisbelief H olland v.W ash. Homes,Inc.,487F.3d 208,220 (4th Cir.2007)rfp efendantqhasputforth uncontested evidencethatittetminated gplainéffjbecauseitsdecisionmakerbelieved thatTlninéfflwas maldngthreatstowatd llissupervisot.w hether(Plaindffjactuallymadethesethteatsis itrelevantin thiscontextbecauseitisuncontested thatthe decisionm akerbelieved thathe c1id.''). A sstated above,Carilion hasoffered evidence ofalegidm ate,nondiscrim inatory, non-pretextualreason fozfiting H cks.H ckshasfailed to tebutCmtilion'sclnim thattllis reason wasgenlpine and sincere.AccorHingly,Count11fails. IV. Fottheteasonsstated above,the courtnow GRAN T S Csrilion'sm oéon.Both countsofI'Iicks'scom plaintare D ISM ISSED and tbiscaseisSTRICK EN from the acdve doèket. A n appropziate O rdershallbeissued tlzisday, Entezed:'rlais;7 dayofMarch, 2019 ' 4 / .*4.ee7A. M ichaelF.Urb ' p'%* .. ' ChiefUn/itedztatesDistdctludge
]]>
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.
