Byrd-Hedgepeth v. Capital One Servs.

• Decision Date: 30 September 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:19cv05
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
• Parties: LINDA C. BYRD-HEDGEPETH, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.

LINDA C. BYRD-HEDGEPETH, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:19cv05

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division

September 30, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Capital One Services, LLC's ("Capital One") Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 36.) Plaintiff Linda C. Byrd-Hedgepeth ("Hedgepeth") responded, (ECF No. 51), and Capital One replied, (ECF No. 52). Accordingly, the matter is ripe for disposition.

The Court dispenses with oral argument because the materials before it adequately present the facts and legal contentions, and argument would not aid the decisional process. The Court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.¹ For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Capital One's Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

This employment discrimination matter arises out of Hedgepeth's claims of race and age discrimination against her current employer, Capital One. Before progressing to the factual andprocedural background of this matter, the Court must first address Hedgepeth's Counsel's submission in response to the Motion for Summary Judgment because it does not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Virginia ("Local Rules").

A. Counsel for Plaintiff and Lack of Compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules

Because the Court finds that Counsel for Plaintiff has not complied with either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules—nor this Court's previous rulings—the Court will strike a number of Plaintiff's exhibits.

Previously, on January 9, 2020, this Court granted Capital One's Motion to Strike Hedgepeth's first response brief and exhibits, finding that Counsel for Plaintiff failed to abide by the Local Rules, despite the Court previously granting him an extension of time in which to file. (Jan. 9, 2020 Order 3, ECF No. 50.) Specifically, the Court determined that Counsel for Plaintiff had failed to abide by the applicable page limit and submitted an unsigned affidavit to the Court, which he later withdrew in subsequent filings. (See id. 3-4.) Although the Court granted Capital One's Motion to Strike, the Court granted Counsel for Plaintiff an opportunity to file a revised response, but warned that "[s]hould . . . Hedgepeth fail to abide by every requirement in the Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and this Order, the Court will not consider any documents presented in opposition to Capital One's Motion." (Id. 4.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 requires that "[a] party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the record[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). Similarly, Local Civil Rule 56 for the Eastern District of Virginia requires that a brief in response to a motion for summary judgment "include a specifically captioned section listing all material facts as to which it is contended that there existsa genuine issue necessary to be litigated and citing the parts of the record relied on to support the facts alleged to be in dispute." E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 56(B). "'Rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment.'" Smith v. U.S. Cong., No. 3:12cv45, 2015 WL 1011545, at *3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2015) (quoting Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994)). Where a party has failed

to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may: (1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact; (2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion; (3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials—including the facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is entitled to it; or (4) issue any other appropriate order.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

In filing the current response, Counsel for Plaintiff has not abided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Local Rule 56(B), or this Court's January 9, 2020 Order for three reasons. First, while Counsel for Plaintiff has submitted fifty-six (56) exhibits, he relies on only forty (40) exhibits in the Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Response"). Second, Counsel for Plaintiff disputes many of Capitol One's facts without citing to the record or by citing to immaterial parts of the record. Counsel therefore has not supported a number of his assertions by "citing to particular parts of [the] materials in the record[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). Third, Counsel for Plaintiff improperly disputes facts by citing solely to exhibits with no explanation or indication as to how those exhibits "support the facts alleged to be in dispute." E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 56(B). For example, Counsel for Plaintiff disputes Capital One's Fact #36 by stating "see Ex. RR, Ex. QQ, also see Ex. PP." (See Mem. Resp. Mot. Summ. J. 15, ECF No. 51.)

Most concerningly, Counsel for Plaintiff mischaracterizes a number of exhibits. For instance, in disputing Capital One's Fact #37, Counsel for Plaintiff states that "Defendant Palmer acknowledges on several instances that he spoke with the Plaintiff regarding her concerns with Mark Prokop" and cites to portions of Hedgepeth's Declaration. (Id.) But Hedgepeth's Declaration contains no such acknowledgement on the part of Palmer—who is not a defendant in this matter—but merely an allegation by Hedgepeth that Palmer had discussed the matter with Hedgepeth. (See Mem. Resp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. L "Declaration of Linda Byrd-Hedgepeth" ¶¶ 17-20, ECF No. 51-12.)

Given Counsel for Plaintiff's repeated violations of the Federal and Local Rules and this Court's previous warnings, the Court will not consider the exhibits that Hedgepeth submitted but did not cite in her dispute of material facts section.² These exhibits violate Federal Rule 56(c)(1)(a). Additionally, where Hedgepeth has merely cited to an exhibit without specifying which portions of that exhibit "support the facts alleged to be in dispute," E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 56(B), the Court will view those facts as undisputed. Although the Court has identified a number of other issues with Counsel for Plaintiff's exhibits and statement of undisputed facts, particularly regarding Hedgepeth's Declaration, the Court will address those deficiencies in the context of the factual background and analysis below.

The Court turns now to the factual background of the case at bar.

B. Factual Background³

Hedgepeth, an African American woman, has worked at Capital One since 2009. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8, ECF No. 21; Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 7 "Linda Byrd-Hedgepeth Employee Profile," ECF No. 37-7.) Capital One "offers a broad spectrum of financial products and services to consumers, small businesses and commercial clients." (Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 1 "Job Profile: Senior Quality Assurance Coordinator" 1, ECF No. 37-1.⁴) In 2011, Capital One promoted Hedgepeth to the position of "Senior Quality Assurance Coordinator," often referred to as a Senior Coordinator in the "Quality Management Operations ('QMO') team in Richmond, Virginia." (Am. Compl. ¶ 9; Hedgepeth Employee Profile.) Hedgepeth was 53 years old when Capital One first hired her, 55 years old when she received the above promotion, and 63 years old when she filed her Amended Complaint in July 2019. (Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 8 "Deposition of Linda Byrd-Hedgepeth" 2, ECF No. 37-8; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 72.)

Hedgepeth continues to work at Capitol One as a Senior Coordinator. (Am Compl. ¶¶ 9, 47; Hedgepeth Emp. Profile; Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 9 "Manager History" 1, ECF No. 37-9.) Capital One's provided job description for a Senior Coordinator states that the position's responsibilities include:

Conduct production sampling, and other quality assurance testing measurements that provide information critical to assessing process execution and customer experience - Perform data entry and data research activities - Respond to questions and requests from management and key stakeholders - Execute and provide recommendations for process improvements and/or operating procedures -Calibrate performance standards with peers and dedicated line of business - Document procedures in accordance with established policies - Generate and distributing updates and reports as needed[.]

(Job Profile: Senior Quality Assurance Coordinator 1.)

From April 2016 to July 2017, with the exception of a two month long special project, Hedgepeth reported to Unit Manager Mark Prokop. (Hedgepeth Dep. 33-34; Manager History 1.) Since then, Hedgepeth has reported to several other supervisors, including Shameka Washington, Shelby Blackmore, Tinikia Coleman, and Brian Palmer. (Manager History 1.)

1. The QMO Department

As a Senior Coordinator, Hedgepeth works in the QMO Department. (Am. Compl. ¶ 9.) The QMO Department monitors for regulatory compliance and business intent errors. (Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 10 "Deposition of Brian Owen Palmer" 2, ECF No. 37-10.⁵) The QMO Department is also "tasked with ensuring that . . . business policies [are] current and up to date" and that "agents [are] not violating those [sic] business intent." (Hedgepeth Dep. 3-4.)

As to regulatory compliance, Senior Coordinators, such as Hedgepeth, "monitor[] calls and cases of front line managers to validate regulatory compliance." (Am. Compl. ¶ 9; see alsoPalmer Dep. 2.) Senior Coordinators use a Compliance Manual, developed by the Compliance Department, to identify "potential regulatory error[s]." (Hedgepeth Dep. 6.)

As to business intent errors, Senior Coordinators use a "CRWEB" document that functions as a "business policy on particular tasks," and identifies steps that "must be done . . . like a task document that states if an agent...