Brown v. Shinseki
| Citation | 892 F.Supp.2d 1019 |
| Decision Date | 24 September 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 11 C 5082.,11 C 5082. |
| Parties | Darrell BROWN, Plaintiff, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael T. Smith, Michael T. Smith & Associates, Roselle, IL, for Plaintiff.
Lashonda Annette Hunt, United States Attorney's Office, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
Darrell Brown brings this suit against Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (“Defendant”) alleging race and sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (R. 1, Compl.) Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (R. 15, Def.'s Mot.) For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motion is granted and judgment is entered in favor of Defendant.
Brown, a black male, began his employment with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) on March 3, 2008, as a program support assistant. (R. 24, Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. 1.) Brown reported to Cathy Spillner, a white female, the Administrative Officer in the Chief of Staff's Office at the North Chicago VA Medical Center. ( Id. 2.) Spillner also supervised two white females, Beverly Bartley and Lynne Abney, and one Hispanic female, Donna Gonzalez. ( Id.) Brown was hired to assist Abney in the credentialing process undertaken when the VA hired doctors to work at their facilities. ( Id. 3.) Brown was the only male under Spillner's supervision and the only non-doctor working in the Chief of Staff's Office. (R. 26–2, Def.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. 35.) From the very first day that Brown commenced working in the Chief of Staff's Office Spillner began taking detailed notes concerning his performance and behavior. ( Id. 39.)
Prior to taking the program support assistant position with the VA, Brown held another federal government job for the Military Medical Support Office, which was a GS–7 position. ( Id. 36.) Brown took the program support assistant position because he believed that the credentialing specialist, which is a GS–11 position, would retire soon and that he would work underneath that person as her assistant. ( Id. 37.) In short, Brown believed that the position with the VA would present a good career path opportunity. ( Id.)
On or about April 28, 2008, Brown stopped by the desk of Alexis Allen, a black female, while on his way to see Spillner. (R. 24, Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. 4.) Allen also worked in the Chief of Staff's Office as a secretary, but she reported to Dr. Edwin Zarling. ( Id. 5.) Brown was upset and frustrated about a contractor who brought him work to do, claiming that Spillner had told her to do so, and wanted to discuss protocol with Spillner. ( Id. 4.) Brown claims that he said under his breath, “these people are so crazy, they make me want to hurt somebody.” ( Id. 6.) Allen was on the phone with a patient but she heard Brown's comment and told him to go ahead and take a break. ( Id. 7.) Brown responded, “when [Spillner] come in, tell her I need to talk to her.” ( Id.) Brown then went outside and took a cigarette break. ( Id. 8.) After Brown's break he came back into the office and informed Allen that he was okay. (R. 26–2, Def.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. 5.) At the time Brown thought everything was fine. ( Id.)
Later that day, Allen asked Bartley, the other secretary who sat in the same office area, if Brown was okay because he had come to her desk earlier and said he was so angry that he could “kill” someone. (R. 24, Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. 9.) Allen then went to Brown's desk to ask if he was alright. (R. 26–2, Def.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. 7.) He again stated that he was fine and told her not to worry about it and that he had cooled off. ( Id.) Spillner testified that Bartley subsequently informed her of what Allen said Brown told her. (R. 24, Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. 10.) Bartley testified that it was actually Allen who informed Spillner about what Brown said. ( Id.) Spillner was aware that Abney and Brown had recently exchanged emails wherein Abney had criticized Brown's work performance. ( Id.) Spillner assumed that Brown had made the remark because of the emails and the stress of the situation. ( Id.) Spillner dismissed the remark as she believed that Brown was merely venting and letting off steam, and she felt that he would calm down and things would be okay. ( Id. 11.)
The next day, when Spillner walked over to the secretary's area, Bartley stopped Spillner and asked Allen to tell Spillner what Brown had said. ( Id. 12.) Allen repeated Brown's statement to Spillner. ( Id.) 2 Spillner then asked Allen to write a report of contact but Allen declined, stating that she did not want to be involved. ( Id. 13.) Spillner continued to believe that Brown was just venting and let it go. ( Id.) At some point, Bartley told Abney about Brown's remark. ( Id. 14.) Abney asked Bartley if Spillner was aware of the incident and Bartley said yes. ( Id.) Abney told Bartley that she wanted to speak with Spillner the moment Spillner got to work. ( Id.) Abney was shaken by the remark because of the work issues she had been having with Brown. ( Id. 15.) 3 Later, Abney went to Spillner's office, crying uncontrollably, stating that she had heard about Brown's remark and was afraid for her life. ( Id. 16.) Abney stated in her deposition that she had worked at the North Chicago VA Medical Center for many years and had never heard or dealt with threatening behavior like that of Brown. (R. 26–2, Def.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. 12.) Abney was upset by the situation and asked her supervisor to relocate her immediately. ( Id.) Spillner made a report of contact regarding her meeting with Abney wherein she reported that Abney told her that she was afraid for her life, that her safety was compromised, and that she could no longer work with Brown. ( Id. 14.) Spillner also reported that Abney became more upset as they discussed the situation and began to cry harder. ( Id.) Spillner further reported that Abney told her that the “I am so angry I could kill someone” remark was directed towards Abney herself. ( Id. 15.) After meeting with Abney, Spillner consulted with Human Resources for guidance. (R. 24, Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. 17.) Spillner was advised to report the incident to the VA Police and that an option was to reassign either Abney or Brown to another area until things calmed down. ( Id.)
On April 30, 2008, Spillner asked Brown to come into her office wherein she informed him that someone told her that he said he was going to “kill” somebody. (R. 26–2, Def.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. 19.) She told him to pack his things. ( Id.) Spillner drafted a letter of inquiry which she gave to Brown during this meeting, asking him to respond to it by the end of the day. (R. 24, Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. 18.) Brown denied threatening to kill anyone. ( Id.) Spillner immediately transferred Brown to the Neurology Department (“Neurology”) as a program service assistant, a position with the same title, wages, and benefits, and involving a slightly different type of office work. ( Id. 19.) Brown found the job in Neurology fulfilling. ( Id.) Neurology was located in the same building as the Chief of Staff's Office but on a different floor. ( Id.) Spillner told Brown not to come to the Chief of Staff or Credentialing Office floor. (R. 26–2, Def.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. 19.) Prior to being transferred to Neurology, Brown had not received any formal write-ups. ( Id. 40.) 4
Spillner reported Brown's remark to the VA Police, who investigated the incident and issued Brown a ticket for disorderly conduct. (R. 24, Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. 20.) The VA's Violence in the Workplace Policy at the North Chicago VA states: ( Id. 21.) Under the policy, violence and intimidation is defined as, among other things, “any verbal statement that can be perceived as threatening or potentially threatening.” ( Id.) The policy requires supervisors to report all incidents of violence and intimidation to the VA Police, who must investigate the report promptly. ( Id. 22.) Additionally, employees who engage in such incidents are subject to arrest, citation, investigation, and/or relocation. ( Id.) The policy further provides that “[a]ny person engaging in violence in the workplace shall be subject to progressive disciplinary action up to and including removal.” (R. 26–2, Def.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. 34.)
Following Brown's transfer to Neurology, he and Spillner exchanged approximately eight or nine emails about Spillner's belief that Brown had arrived late to work on several occasions. (R. 24, Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. 23.) On June 5, Spillner sent Brown an email complaining that he was late when he was, in fact, not late. (R. 26–2, Def.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. 26.) On or about June 6, 2008, Spillner sent Brown several emails complaining of him allegedly being tardy since moving to Neurology. ( Id.) Brown responded via email denying that he was late and asking when it was that he was allegedly late. ( Id.) That same day, Spillner called Brown inquiring of his whereabouts and asking questions about his tardiness. (R. 24, Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. 24.) Spillner accused Brown of being rude and disrespectful on the phone which Brown denies. (R. 26–2, Def.'s Rule 56.1 Resp. 27.) On the same day, Spillner came to Neurology with a reprimand stating that Brown was late on March 10, 11 (which was his orientation), May 8, and June 5, 2008. ( Id. 28.) This was Brown's first write-up. ( Id.) Brown told Spillner that he had taken leave for any day that he was late. ( Id.) Brown did not have to undergo a sign-in or punch-in process when coming to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- McGreal v. AT & T Corp.
-
Aldridge v. Lake Cnty. Sheriff's Office, Case No. 11 C 3041
...Cerros v. Steel Tech., Inc., 288 F.3d 1040, 1046 (7th Cir. 2002). 43. Id. 44. Pl's Resp. at 42, dkt. 121. 45. See Brown v. Shinseki, 892 F.Supp.2d 1019, 1027 (N.D. Ill. 2012). 46. Id. 47. See id. at 1028(referring to a variety of cases where a hostile work environment claim was sustained). ......