Baker v. Davidson, 5:21-CV-05093-KES
| Court | United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. District of South Dakota |
| Writing for the Court | KAREN E. SCHREIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE |
| Parties | WILLIAM RAY BAKER, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, v. PAULETTE DAVIDSON, CEO/President of Monument Health, Defendant/Counter Claimant. |
| Docket Number | 5:21-CV-05093-KES |
| Decision Date | 17 November 2022 |
WILLIAM RAY BAKER, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant,
v.
PAULETTE DAVIDSON, CEO/President of Monument Health, Defendant/Counter Claimant.
No. 5:21-CV-05093-KES
United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division
November 17, 2022
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DAVIDSON ON BAKER'S CLAIMS, DISMISSING COUNTERCLAIM, AND DENYING RULE 11 SANCTIONS
KAREN E. SCHREIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, William Ray Baker, filed a pro se lawsuit alleging unlawful discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Docket 1 at 3. Baker also alleges retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Id. Defendant, Paulette Davidson, moves for summary judgment on all claims, summary judgment on her counterclaim of barratry, and Rule 11 sanctions. See Docket 23, 52, 53 at 18. In several filings to the court, Baker opposed summary judgment and Davidson's other motions. See Docket 58, 59, 60, 64, 77.
BACKGROUND
I. Factual Background
Baker was employed by Rapid City Regional Hospital, the predecessor affiliate to Monument Health (collectively, the Hospital), from approximately
July 1, 1981 to November 7, 2016. Docket 54 at 1.[1]During his employment at the Hospital, Baker worked “in various capacities, including as a custodian, psychiatric aide, life coach, and psychiatric technician.” Id. (citation omitted). Twice during his employment, once in November 2013 and again in December 2014, Baker suffered blows to the head when he was attacked by patients in the psychiatric unit. Id. at 1-2. After the second attack, Baker experienced various symptoms, including short-term memory deficits, and was off work until early February 2015. Id. at 2.
Baker resumed work in February 2015 but again took leave in July of 2015 when his psychiatrist ordered him off work. Id. Baker never returned to work for the Hospital. Id. After the Hospital determined that Baker exhausted his available leave, including leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the ADA, the Hospital terminated his employment on November 7, 2016. Id.
II. Prior Lawsuits
Numerous legal proceedings followed Baker's termination. See id. at 2-6. The first of these proceedings began on November 8, 2016, when Baker filed two small claims lawsuits. Id. at 2-3. One suit was against Janel Brown, the Nursing Director at Regional health, alleging sexual orientation discrimination,
disability discrimination, and retaliation. Id. at 2. The other was against Tristina Weekley, supervisor at Rapid City Regional Hospital, alleging sexual orientation discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation, and conspiracy. Id. at 2-3. Both complaints were dismissed by Baker. Id.
On November 16, 2016, Baker filed a “Petition and Affidavit for a Protection Order (Stalking, or Physical Injury as a Result of an Assault, or a Crime of Violence)” against Comet Harldson, an attorney working for the Hospital. Id. at 3. Judge Robert Gusinksy dismissed the complaint on December 6, 2016, when Baker failed to appear at a hearing. Id. Baker did not appeal. Id.
On November 21, 2016, Baker filed a small claims lawsuit alleging discrimination, harassment, exploitation, and retaliation against Judith Warnke, an employee of the Hopsital. Id. Baker dismissed this suit on January 13, 2017 and did not appeal the dismissal. Id.
On November 22, 2016, Baker sued Paula McInerney Hall, in-house counsel for the Hospital, alleging abuse and neglect, hardship to a disabled individual, exploitation, deceit, and failure to assist in criminal prosecutions. Id. Baker dismissed the suit on January 13, 2017 and did not appeal the dismissal. Id.
Also on November 22, 2016, Baker filed a small claims lawsuit against Brent Phillips, who was then the CEO of the Hospital. Id. The suit alleged fraud, deceit, harassment, discrimination against a disabled adult, life endangerment, and abuse and neglect of a disabled individual. Id. at 3-4.
Baker dismissed the suit on January 4, 2017 and did not appeal the dismissal. Id. at 4.
On November 29, 2016, Baker filed again for a protection order against Comet Haraldson. Id. Judge Gusinsky denied and dismissed the petition the same day, finding that there did not exist sufficient grounds for relief. Id. Baker did not appeal. Id.
On March 14, 2017, Baker filed a small claims lawsuit against Maureen Henson, a human resources officer, alleging violations of the FMLA. Id. Judge Jeff Connolly dismissed the suit on May 2, 2017, when Baker failed to appear at a status hearing. Id. Baker did not appeal the dismissal. Id.
On April 6, 2017, Baker filed a complaint in federal district court that named thirteen individuals who were employed by or affiliated with the Hospital. Id. The complaint alleged violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the National Labor Relations Act, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 5. On February 9, 2018, Judge Jeffrey Viken dismissed the complaint via a written opinion and order. Id. Baker did not appeal the dismissal. Id.
On June 30, 2017, Baker again filed suit in federal court. Id. This suit was brought against four individuals affiliated with the Hospital, two lawyers representing the Hospital, and two persons of unknown affiliation. Id. Baker alleged discrimination under Title VII, the ADA, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
and retaliation for filing federal complaints. Id. On February 9, 2018, Judge Viken dismissed this complaint. Id. Baker did not appeal the dismissal. Id.
On July 14, 2017, Baker filed a suit in federal court naming 29 Defendants, 23 of whom were affiliated with the Hospital. Id. The suit asserted multiple claims arising under federal law, in addition to various state-law claims. Id. Judge Viken dismissed the complaint on February 9, 2018. Id. at 6. Baker did not appeal the dismissal. Id.
On September 8, 2021, Baker filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), complaining of discrimination on the basis of sex (sexual orientation), disability, and retaliation. Id.; Docket 1-1 at 35-38. The EEOC dismissed the charge on September 23, 2021. Id. at 1; Docket 54 at 6.
III. Instant Dispute
Baker filed the instant action on December 17, 2021. Docket 1. Because Baker commenced this action pro se, the court construes his complaint liberally, because “pro se litigants are held to a lesser pleading standard than other parties.” Gerstner v. Sebig, LLC, 386 Fed. App'x. 573, 575 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Whitson v. Stone County Jail, 602 F.3d 920, 922 n.1 (8th Cir. 2010)). Applying this standard to Baker's filing, the court finds that he has made three claims against Davidson.[2]See Docket 1 at 1-4.
The first claim alleges discrimination under the Title VII. Id. at 3. The second claim alleges discrimination under the ADA. Id. The third claim alleges retaliation in violation of FLSA. Id.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Davidson moves for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Docket 52. Davidson argues that Baker's claims are untimely, that Baker has failed to demonstrate a legal and factual basis for each of his claims, and that Baker's claims are barred by res judicata. Docket 53 at 9, 11, 13, 14. Baker opposes the motion. See Docket 58.
I. Legal Standard
“Summary judgment is proper when the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” RSA 1 Ltd. P'ship v. Paramount Software Assocs., Inc., 793 F.3d 903, 907 (8th Cir. 2015) (citing Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc)). “The moving party has the burden to establish both the absence of genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Boyer v. Scott Bros. Inv. Corp., 2013 WL 772874 at *1 (D. Mo. 2013) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986)). The court views the record in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
"To survive a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must substantiate his allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would
permit a finding in his favor based on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy.” Boyer, 2013 WL 772874 at *2 (D. Mo. 2013) (cleaned up). “A plaintiff may not merely point to unsupported self-serving allegations, but must substantiate allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in the plaintiff's favor.” Davidson & Assocs. v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630, 638 (8th Cir. 2005). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the factfinder could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Turner v. XTO Energy, Inc., 989 F.3d 625, 627 (8th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)).
II. Timeliness
A. Discrimination Claims
Davidson argues that Baker's claims of discrimination under Title VII and under the ADA are time barred because he did not file his claims with the EEOC during the statutory period. Docket 53 at 9-11. “Title VII requires that before a plaintiff can bring suit in court to allege unlawful discrimination, []he must file a timely charge with the EEOC or a state or local agency with authority to seek relief.” Richter v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., 686 F.3d 847, 850 (8th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) and 42 U.S.C. §12117(a), claims under Title VII and under the ADA must be filed with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged discrimination. If...
To continue reading
Request your trial