Camlin v. S.C. Dep't of Natural Res.
| Decision Date | 17 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | C/A No. 4:14-3388-RBH-KDW |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | Robin D. Camlin, Plaintiff, v. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Defendant. |
Plaintiff Robin D. Camlin ("Plaintiff" or "Camlin") filed this action against her employer, Defendant South Carolina Department of Natural Resources ("Defendant" or "DNR"), alleging DNR violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, when it failed to promote her to the position of Lieutenant-Investigations ("L-I"). At the close of discovery, Defendant moved for summary judgment. ECF No. 46. Plaintiff responded to the Motion, ECF No. 50; and Defendant filed a reply, ECF No. 64. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) for a report and recommendation ("Report") regarding Defendant's pending dispositive motion. Having reviewed the parties' submissions and the applicable law, the undersigned recommends Defendant's Motion, ECF No. 46, be granted and this matter be ended.
A. DNR organization
Plaintiff is employed by DNR in the Investigations Section of its Law Enforcement Division ("LE"). In addition to the Investigations Section, the LE Division has field offices and anadministrative division. Within the Administrative Division is the Education Section, which provides education and outreach. DNR's Investigations Section includes overt (uniformed) investigators, covert operations (undercover), marine theft, and aids to navigation. The Section also conducts the marine event program, boating saturation ("BSAF") team, abandoned boat program, river-shack program, basic marine law enforcement training, and boat accident data entry. Investigative activity within the Investigations Section includes, but is not limited to: boating fatalities, hunting fatalities, marine theft, aids to navigation, regulatory, aquatic investigations and recovery, background checks, and internal staff investigations. The Investigations Section is a standalone area led by Captain Gary Sullivan, who reports directly to Colonel Chisolm Frampton, who is Deputy Director over the LE Division. Colonel Frampton reports to DNR Executive Director Alvin Taylor. See Affidavit of DNR Human Resources ("HR") Director Terri McGee ["McGee Aff."], ECF No. 46-2 at 2, 6.2
B. The L-I position at issue
Plaintiff's sole cause of action is one for Title VII3 gender discrimination. Plaintiff alleges she was not promoted to the L-I position at issue because of her gender. As set out in the Job Announcement or "Posting", the L-I position has responsibility for the supervision of all overt law enforcement investigations and programs. The L-I is expected to supervise and direct the majority of staff in the Investigations Section, assist with Section duties, assign investigators, complete work schedules, manage equipment and inventory, supervise marine events, prepare reports, approve timesheets and schedule staff training. McGee Aff. ¶ 5 & attached documents, ECF No. 46-2 at 2, 12-14. The Posting sets out the following pertinent information:
The L-I position had been held by Gary Sullivan for years. In December 2011, Sullivan was promoted to Captain, but retained supervisory duties over all Investigators. During that time, there was not an L-I position. Management decided to create a new L-I position, which was posted for applications on October 3, 2012. Captain Sullivan was the hiring manager, and the new L-I would report to him. Sullivan, with McGee's assistance, created the position description and Posting, assembled an interview panel (discussed more thoroughly below), scheduled interviews, chose questions to be asked, determined how the candidates would be rated, and determined which candidate to recommend to Colonel Chisolm Frampton for LE Division-level approval. Once Colonel Frampton and the HR Director approved the recommendation, DNR Executive Director Alvin Taylor would consider the recommendation and make the final decision. This chain-of-command consideration was followed in filling the L-I position. See ECF No. 46-2 at 12-14, Sullivan Dep. 41-42.
C. The applicants
Six individuals applied for the L-I position. As it is uncontested that Plaintiff and Investigator Larry Donald Pritcher ("Pritcher") were the top two candidates, see Sullivan Dep. 67, the court focuses only on them.
DNR's predecessor agency hired Plaintiff in 1990 as a field/conservation officer in the LE Division—a position she held until 1998. Pl.'s Dep. 3-4, ECF No. 46-7. Plaintiff's job responsibilities involved the enforcement of state and federal wildlife and boating laws, litter laws, and regulations. Plaintiff also presented programs to schools and organizations. See Pl.'s Resume, ECF No. 46-2 at 22-26. In 1998, Plaintiff applied for, interviewed, and received a position as an Education Officer in the Hunter and Boater Education Section of the LE Division. Pl.'s Dep. 6-8. In 2007, Plaintiff applied for, interviewed, and received a position as an Investigator in the LE Division of DNR. She held the rank of sergeant at that time. Id. at 10. During the 2007 interview process Sullivan was the L-I of the Investigations Section, served on that interview panel, and recommended Plaintiff be selected for the investigator position. Plaintiff remains in that investigator position today. Id. at 10-11.
DNR's predecessor agency hired Pritcher as a Boating Education Officer in the LE Division in September 1986. He held that position until 1992, at which time he became a Boating and Hunting Education Officer for DNR. See Pritcher Resume, ECF No. 46-2 at 34-35. In May 1997, Pritcher was selected to join DNR's first Investigations Section as an Investigator, where he remains. Id. In addition to investigative duties, Pritcher's duties included working on the Aids to Navigation Program. Id.
D. The interview process
DNR's LE Division's Directive D348 sets out its Officer Promotion Plan. See ECF No. 46-2 at 27-29. In addition to other directives, the Plan provides for a Promotion Board, comprised of "the Captain, if appropriate 2) the appropriate Major, 3) the Lieutenant Colonel, and 4) a representative from the Office of Human Resources," to interview applicants for investigator positions not assigned to particular regions. Id. at 28. The Promotion Board is often referred to as the "Panel."
The Panel for the L-I position consisted of three individuals: Captain Sullivan, who is Captain over the Investigations Section and the hiring manager; Mike Sabaka, who is an Administration Captain with experience in the Investigations Section; and HR Manager Stephanie Welch. ECF No. 46-2 at 8. Captain Sabaka was selected for the Panel because of his experience and because the Investigations Section did not have a Major, and the LE Division did not have a Lieutenant Colonel, as D348 had contemplated. Id.,4 Sullivan Dep. 51.
Sullivan selected Captain Sabaka to serve on the panel because of Sabaka's interest and experience in Investigations. Id. at 47, 62-63. Sullivan recalled that he and Sabaka had served on a prior interview panel. Id. at 61-62. Although DNR Directive 348 II.B.4.b (D348) called for a lieutenant colonel and an "appropriate major" to sit on the Panel, there was neither over the Investigations Section at that time. Sullivan testified that, other than Executive Director Taylor, Captain Sabaka was the highest ranking DNR officer knowledgeable about investigations at that time. Id. at 50-51, 133-34. Sabaka had worked directly with both Sullivan and Pritcher. Sullivan Dep. 17-20. Sabaka had gone through basic training with Plaintiff and had worked with Plaintiff on occasion prior to 2012; however, he noted he had not worked directly with Plaintiff when she was an Investigator. Sabaka Dep. 35, 45, ECF No. 46-5. Sabaka did recall investigating a marine fatality with Plaintiff, although he did not recall many specifics of that interaction. Id. at 39-41.
McGee recommended Stephanie Welch as the HR representative for the Panel. Sullivan approved and chose Welch, noting she had previously worked in the marine-theft office. Sullivan Dep. 47, 55. He was also aware Welch had worked with Pritcher in the marine-theft office. Id. at 55. Sullivan had no knowledge of Welch's prior experience serving on interview panels. Id. at 61.
As the hiring manager, Captain Sullivan devised questions to be asked of the candidates during their interviews, and identified critical "competencies," or job requirements on which the Panel would rate the candidates using a one-to-six scale: 1) Job Knowledge/Responsibilities; 2) Planning; 3) Organizing; and 4) Supervisory & Leadership Potential. Sullivan Dep. 68-74.5 Sullivan wanted to select the best person for L-I position and believed the most important qualities for the position were "[o]verall job knowledge, overall section knowledge, overall ability to do those jobs and to know how they're done, experience as an investigator and [as] a DNR officer." Id. at 90-91.
E. The interviews
On October 24, 2012, Captain Sullivan, Captain Sabaka, and Stephanie Welch interviewed six applicants, including Plaintiff and Investigator Pritcher. Pritcher was the successful applicant. The interviewers each completed "Applicant Evaluation Forms" on which they gave each candidate scores in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial