Barnett v. Healthcare Staffing, Inc.

• Decision Date: 30 March 2015
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV213-073
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
• Parties: ANTHONY D. BARNETT, Plaintiff, v. HEALTHCARE STAFFING, INC., GATEWAY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, KRISTINE WALDRON, VANESSA SHEARER, and CATHY THOMPSON, Defendants.

ANTHONY D. BARNETT, Plaintiff, v. HEALTHCARE STAFFING, INC.,

GATEWAY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES,

KRISTINE WALDRON, VANESSA SHEARER, and CATHY THOMPSON, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV213-073

United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Brunswick Division

March 30, 2015

ORDER

Presently before the Court are two separate Motions for Summary Judgment: the first filed by Defendants Healthcare Staffing, Inc. ("HCS") and Kristine Waldron, dkt. no. 36, and the second filed by Defendants Gateway Behavioral Health Services ("Gateway"), Vanessa Shearer, and Cathy Thompson (collectively "the Gateway Defendants"), dkt. no. 37. Plaintiff filed Responses to these separate Motions. Dkt. Nos. 51, 52. Each group of Defendants filed a Reply. Dkt. Nos. 54, 55. For the following reasons, Defendants' Motions are GRANTED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND¹

Defendant HCS is a company which, since the year 2000, has "specialize[d] in providing staffing services for health care facilities[.]" Dkt. No. 36-1, p. 1. Defendant HCS had a contract to provide staffing services to Defendant Gateway, which is a community service board created by the Georgia legislature. Id., Dkt. 36-2, p.2. Gateway serves Georgia's coastal counties and provides "assistance to individuals and their families experiencing disabling effects of mental illness, developmental disability, and addictive diseases." Id.

Per the terms of the contract between HCS and Gateway, HCS accepts applications from potential employees and screens applicants to be assigned to Gateway, but Gateway is to approve any applicant before he works at Gateway. Id. at p. 3. HCS pays and employs an individual during his assignment at Gateway, but Gateway and its employees manage and control the HCS employee. Id. Gateway determines the criteria, such as level of education, credentials, and licenses an individual must possess before he is assigned to Gateway. Gateway alsodetermines the compensation to be paid, whether the compensation will be on an hourly or salaried basis, and whether to terminate the "positions being filled by employees staffed by" HCS employees. Id. HCS employees assigned to Gateway work at Gateway facilities. Id. at p. 4. Defendant Vanessa Shearer is the Human Resources Director for Gateway and coordinates with HCS to fill Gateway's staffing needs. Dkt. 37-2, p. 3.

Plaintiff applied with HCS for a nursing position on the Assertive Community Treatment ("ACT") team at Gateway on August 30, 2011. Dkt. No. 36-2, p. 4; Dkt. No 36-4, p. 5, ¶ 22. Plaintiff received a Bachelor of Nursing degree from Tuskegee University in 1982 and has worked in the psychiatric nursing field for approximately 30 years' time. To be eligible for the position at Gateway, Plaintiff had to pass a series of tests, including clinical and pharmacology tests. Dkt. No. 36-2, p. 5. Plaintiff passed these tests after more than one attempt and was approved to be a nurse on the ACT team at Gateway. Id. Plaintiff began working at Gateway on September 28, 2011, and he received a copy of the HCS employee handbook on October 3, 2011. Id.; Dkt. No. 36-4, p. 6, ¶¶ 25, 26. Plaintiff was employed by HCS from September 2011, until his termination on or about July 9, 2012. Dkt. 9, ¶¶ 14, 35.

Gateway set Plaintiff's hours, schedule, and pay. Plaintiff reported to Nina Kennedy, an employee of Gateway, and Ms.Kennedy and other Gateway managers supervised Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 36-2, p. 6. The only matter Plaintiff reported to HCS was the hours he worked. Id. Ms. Kennedy issued a written reprimand to Plaintiff on November 16, 2011, based on his lateness, a policy violation, and the quality of work produced. Dkt. No. 36-4, p. 48; Dkt. No. 37-2, p. 6.

While Plaintiff worked at the ACT, Defendant Kristine Waldron was working as the Acting Nurse Manager at Gateway. Dkt. No. 37-2, p. 7. Defendant Waldron noticed Plaintiff would package drugs and medications in pill containers prior to his visits with consumers, which was against policy and the law. Id. Defendant Waldron also noticed there were some narcotic drugs missing, and Plaintiff admitted to repacking the consumers' medications. Id. Defendant Waldron voiced her concerns to Ms. Kennedy. Id. at p. 8.

Plaintiff later requested a transfer from the ACT team to the Crisis Stabilization Unit ("CSU"), and Gateway approved this request on or around February 15, 2012. Dkt. No. 36-2, p. 6. Plaintiff worked the weekend night shifts. Dkt. No. 37-2, p. 8. Defendant Cathy Thompson, an employee of Gateway, was Plaintiff's supervisor on the CSU. Dkt. No. 36-2, p. 6. As with the ACT team, in this new position, the only matter Plaintiff reported to HCS was his hours worked. Id. at p. 7.

Defendant Thompson is the manager in charge of the CSU at Gateway. Dkt. No. 37-3, p. 2. Defendant Waldron reported the issues she had had with Plaintiff while he was in the ACT to Defendant Thompson. Dkt. No. 37-2, p. 8. During the week of June 25, 2012, Defendant Thompson notified HCS that Plaintiff was not to return to the CSU because of unsatisfactory job performance. Based on the contract between HCS and Gateway, HCS was required to remove Plaintiff from his assignment in the CSU. Dkt. No. 36-2, p. 7. Hayley Barr of HCS left a voicemail for Plaintiff to return her call, but Plaintiff did not receive this message until after HCS's offices were closed. When Plaintiff came to work at the CSU on June 29, 2012, Defendant Thompson informed him that she did not want him working in the CSU any longer. Id.; Dkt. No. 36-7, pp. 107, 110.

Following the termination of his employment at Gateway, HCS attempted to find Plaintiff another assignment, but these efforts were not successful. Dkt. No. 37-2, p. 10. HCS issued a separation notice to Plaintiff on July 9, 2012. Dkt. No. 36-7, pp. 113-14, 117; Dkt. No. 36-2, p. 7. Plaintiff filed complaints against HCS and Gateway with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). On both complaints, the EEOC issued Plaintiff a right to sue letter after determining that it was unable to conclude that the information gathered established violations of the statutes. Dkt. Nos. 9-1, 9-2.

Plaintiff is a black male, and he claims he was fired solely because of his race and gender and was replaced by Defendant Waldron, a white female Plaintiff contends is less qualified than he is. Dkt. No. 9, ¶ 63. Plaintiff also claims Defendants Waldron, Shearer, and Thompson conspired to manufacture reasons to terminate him. Dkt. No. 52-1, p. 4. Plaintiff seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or "Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1981a, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and under Georgia law for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Dkt. No. 9, ¶¶ 66, 87, 108, 132, 167, 199, 219, 248, 277.

Defendants state Plaintiff was not discriminated against based on his race or gender or treated unlawfully. Dkt. No. 36-1, p. 2; Dkt. No. 37-1, p. 3. Rather, Defendants HCS and Waldron state Plaintiff "refuses to recognize that his own actions . . . resulted in the termination of his employment[.]" Dkt. No. 36-1, p. 2. The Gateway Defendants maintain there is no basis for Plaintiff's claims against them. Dkt. No. 37-1, p. 3.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment "shall" be granted if "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."FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). "A dispute about a material fact is genuine and summary judgment is inappropriate if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. However, there must exist a conflict in substantial evidence to pose a jury question." Hall v. Sunjoy Indus. Grp., Inc., 764 F. Supp.2d 1297, 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), and (Verbraeken v. Westinqhouse Elec. Corp., 881 F.2d 1041, 1045 (11th Cir. 1989)).

The moving parties bear the burden of establishing that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Williamson Oil Co., Inc. v. Philip Morris USA, 346 F.3d 1287, 1298 (11th Cir. 2003). Specifically, the moving parties must identify the portions of the record which establish that there are no "genuine dispute[s] as to any material fact and the movant[s are] entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Moton v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2011). When the nonmoving party would have the burden of proof at trial, the moving parties may discharge their burden by showing that the record lacks evidence to support the nonmoving party's case or that the nonmoving party would be unable to prove his case at trial. See id. (citing Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986)). In determining whether a summary judgment motionshould be granted, a court must view the record and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the record in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Peek-A-Boo Lounge of Bradenton, Inc. v. Manatee Cnty., Fla., 630 F.3d 1346, 1353 (11th Cir. 2011).

DISCUSSION

The instant Motions require the Court to apply the above-explained summary judgement standard to each claim within Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.² While the Gateway Defendants have filed a separate motion from Defendants HSC and Waldron, much of the analysis applies equally to both motions.

I. Discrimination (Counts I through IV of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint)

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to "discharge . . . or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race. . . [or] sex[.]" 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, "[a]llpersons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State . . . to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and...