Brooks v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 20 January 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. H–13–3097.
• Citation: 86 F.Supp.3d 577
• Parties: Samanthy BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

86 F.Supp.3d 577

Samanthy BROOKS, Plaintiff

v.HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

Civil Action No. H–13–3097.

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.

Signed Jan. 20, 2015.

Marjorie A. Murphy, The Murphy Law Practice, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.

Jonathan Griffin Brush, Adam David Courtin, Rogers, Morris & Grover, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION

LEE H. ROSENTHAL, District Judge.

Samanthy Brooks sued her employer, the Houston Independent School District (“HISD”), claiming that she was retaliated against after she complained that a supervisor made racist statements. HISD moves for summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts show that the personnel actions Brooks challenges were due to problems in her job performance and were not retaliatory, as a matter of law. (Docket Entry No. 22). Brooks responded, and HISD replied. (Docket Entry Nos. 38, 47). The court heard argument on the motion on December 15, 2014. (Docket Entry No. 52). Based on the pleadings; the motion, response, and reply; the record; the applicable law; and the parties' arguments, the court grants HISD's motion for summary judgment. Final judgment is entered by separate order.

The reasons for this ruling are explained below.

I. Background

The relevant facts are largely undisputed, and no material facts are disputed. Brooks has worked at HISD as a food server in different schools since 1994. (Docket Entry No. 38, Ex. A, Brooks Depo., p. 10). She is the primary caretaker for her 15–year–old grandson, who has attention deficit disorder

. (Docket Entry No. 38, Ex. B, Brooks Affidavit, ¶¶ 5–6). Brooks prefers to be assigned to the school that her grandson attends because he requires “constant care and attention.” (Docket Entry No. 38, pp. 2–3). In 2010 and 2011, Brooks worked at Welch Middle School, where her grandson was a student. (Docket Entry No. 38, Ex. B, Brooks Affidavit, ¶¶ 10, 32–34). Her supervisor at Welch was Annie Marshall, who, like Brooks, is African–American. (Docket Entry No. 22, Ex. B, Welch Affidavit, at ¶ 5).

Welch's cafeteria had operational and financial problems. In August 2011, HISD brought in area manager Patrice Dauge to address those problems. (Id. ). At a staff meeting in December 2011, Dauge, who is white, told the Welch Middle School food servers, all African–American or Hispanic, that “you people” should “shut up” and listen to their supervisors. (Docket Entry No. 38, Ex. B, Brooks Depo., pp. 56, 64). On another occasion, Dauge told Brooks a story about his family. (Id. at pp. 67, 263). Brooks thought that Dauge's statements to the employees and the story he told her were racist. She complained to HISD and, later, to the EEOC. (Id. at p. 32; Docket Entry No. 22, Ex. A–1). Dauge was aware of Brooks's complaints. (Docket Entry No. 38, Ex. E, Guice Depo., p. 21).

After Brooks complained, she was disciplined for a series of work rule infractions. This was not the first time Brooks had been disciplined for failing to follow HISD's rules. She had a history of disciplinary problems dating back to 2004, when she was fired for repeatedly being out of uniform, dealing with personal business at work, arriving late for her shift, and being “insubordinate.” (Docket Entry No. 22, Ex. A–9). Brooks appealed and was reinstated with a demotion. (Id. ). In September 2010, Brooks was disciplined again for angrily confronting one of her grandson's teachers. (Docket Entry No. 22, Ex. A–3). In 2011, Marshall orally counseled Brooks about her tardiness, wearing clothes that did not follow HISD's uniform rules, using her cell-phone in violation of HISD's rules, and profanity that again violated HISD's conduct rules. (Docket Entry No. 22, Ex. F, Marshall Affidavit, ¶ 2). Marshall did not give Brooks a written disciplinary warning.

In October 2011, Marshall gave Brooks a generally positive performance review. (Id. ). The evaluation rated Brooks as “exceeding evaluations” in most categories, but gave her lower reviews in others, including improper dress and “language and hostile behaviors.” (Docket Entry No. 38, Ex. D–1).

In February 2012, after Brooks had complained about Dauge, she was disciplined by Inman Ekwere, who had replaced Marshall. Ekwere, who is African–American, issued Brooks a written reprimand for coming to work late, using profanity, having a hostile attitude, and using her personal cell phone during working hours, all against HISD's rules. (Docket Entry No. 22, Ex. B–2; Ex. B–4).

In this lawsuit, Brooks alleges that Dauge either issued the disciplinary write-ups himself or caused others to do so. She testified in her deposition and affidavit that two weeks after her complaints, Dauge told her that he would make her life a “living hell” if she kept fighting him. She testified that at a disciplinary conference in February 2012, Dauge told her that “if you stop fighting me, this will all go away.” (Docket Entry No. 38, Ex. B, Brooks Affidavit, ¶ 31). She testified that three days later, Dauge told her that she was being suspended without pay pending another disciplinary conference because of repeated tardiness and a hostile attitude, then said, “it was nice knowing you,” and left the room. (Docket Entry No. 38, Ex. B, Brooks Affidavit, ¶¶ 27, 32; Ex. A, Brooks Depo., pp. 64–67).

Brooks's February 2012 disciplinary write-ups resulted in a 20–day suspension without pay and a transfer to the cafeteria at Tinsley Elementary School. Mark Welch, the General Manager of Operations for HISD's Food Services Department, made the decision to suspend and transfer Brooks. Welch testified, and there is no controverting evidence, that when he did so, he did not know about her complaints about Dauge. (Docket Entry No. 22, Ex. B, Welch Affidavit, ¶¶ 8–12).

At Tinsley Elementary, Brooks had different supervisors. The record contains no evidence that any of those supervisors knew that she had complained about Dauge's comments to her and others. At Tinsley Elementary, Brooks again received disciplinary write-ups for violating the rules on uniforms and cell-phone use. She also received a disciplinary write-up for mishandling food. (Docket Entry No. 22, Ex. B–4; Ex. I, Foster Affidavit, ¶ 9; Ex. I–1).

After working only two weeks at Tinsley Elementary, Brooks went on medical leave. She initially submitted doctors' notes to explain why. But starting on April 5, 2012, Brooks was absent without medical justification, contrary to HISD's rules. (Docket Entry No. 22, Ex. B, Welch Affidavit, ¶ 13; Ex. I, Foster Affidavit, ¶ 10; Ex. I–2). Tinsley Elementary area manager Nancy Montalbo scheduled a “conference for the record” with Brooks to discuss her unauthorized absences. (Docket Entry No. 22, Ex. B–5). Brooks submitted a new doctor's note before the scheduled conference, and HISD cancelled it. (Docket Entry No. 22, Ex. I, Foster Affidavit, ¶ 10).

Brooks was absent on medical leave through August 2012, when the new school year started. In August, HISD could not locate any records explaining Brooks's absence, and scheduled another “conference for the record” with her. (Docket Entry No. 22, Ex. A–12). Brooks did not attend the conference or explain her absence.

Welch had learned about Brooks's complaints against Dauge in mid-April 2012. He decided in August 2012 to fire her, after she failed to attend the scheduled conference. (Docket Entry No. 22, Ex. B, Welch Affidavit, ¶ 14). Brooks met with HISD on September 13 and provided records explaining why she had been on medical leave. HISD concluded that it had lost or mishandled the documents Brooks had submitted earlier. On September 17, 2012, Welch reinstated Brooks with back pay. (Id. ).

Brooks returned to work in September 2012 at a new school. She continued to have disciplinary problems there, for food-safety violations and interfering with an investigation. She was transferred to a fourth school in May 2013. At that school, she was disciplined for tardiness. There is no evidence that the supervisors at either school knew of her earlier complaints against Dauge.

Brooks sued HISD in October 2013, alleging race and disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and ADA and Title VII retaliation. After discovery, HISD moved for summary judgment on all Brooks's claims. In her response, Brooks made clear that she has abandoned all of her claims except retaliation under Title VII. At the December 15, 2014 hearing, Brooks clarified that she was pursuing only retaliation claims based on the events before May 2012, when Dauge left HISD, and based on the (rescinded) notice of termination she received in August 2012.

II. The Legal Standards

A. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). “The movant bears the burden of identifying those portions of the record it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Triple Tee Golf, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., 485 F.3d 253, 261 (5th Cir.2007) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–25, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ).

If the burden of proof at trial lies with the nonmoving party, the movant may satisfy its initial burden by “ ‘showing’—that is, pointing out to the district court—that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.” See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. While the party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, it does not need to negate the elements of the nonmovant's case. Boudreaux v. Swift Transp. Co., 402 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir.2005) (citation omitted). “A fact is ‘material’ if its resolution in favor of one party might affect the outcome of the lawsuit under governing law.” Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316, 326 (5th Cir.2009) (quotation omitted). “If the moving party fails to meet [its] initial burden, the motion [for summary judgment] must be...