Chappell v. School Bd. of City of Virginia Beach
| Decision Date | 20 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 2:97cv1202. |
| Parties | O. Floyd CHAPPELL, Plaintiff, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, John Kalocay, James Troutman, and Anthony Arnold, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Scott M. Reed, Preston & Reed, P.L.C., Virginia Beach, VA, for Plaintiff.
Richard H. Matthews, Pender & Coward, P.C., Virginia Beach, VA, for Defendants.
This matter came before the Court on defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. On June 29, 1998, the parties consented to have the case proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. The Court heard oral argument on the Motion on June 29, 1998.
This is a civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by O. Floyd Chappell ("Chappell"), a former employee of the defendant School Board of the City of Virginia Beach ("School Board"), against the School Board and several of its individual employees.
The following are undisputed background facts from the record in the case. Plaintiff, O. Floyd Chappell, was first employed by defendant School Board in 1992 in a construction inspection position titled "Clerk of the Works". (See Defendants' Exhibit 1, a job description for the position.) The individual defendants are also employed in various capacities by the School Board. Plaintiff is a male Caucasian, now approximately 60 years of age. Chappell filed an age discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), on or about November 14, 1994, challenging the actions of his employer, the School Board of the City of Virginia Beach. Eventually, in October of 1996, the charge was dismissed by the Commission upon a finding of no cause. The plaintiff took no further action to pursue the matter.
Plaintiff had also sent a letter to the EEOC on or about November 13, 1995, listing twelve (12) incidents of adverse action that he stated had been taken against him, allegedly in retaliation for his having filed the previous age discrimination charge with the EEOC.1 (Attached to Defendants' Exhibit 6, Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories, hereafter "the list".) However, a sworn retaliation charge was not filed with the EEOC until April 19, 1996. The acts of retaliation were alleged to have occurred at a time up to and including June 1, 1995.2 (Exhibit 4.) The EEOC investigation into the retaliation claim was "unable to conclude that the information obtained established violations of the statute" and dismissed the charge, granting the plaintiff his required "Notice of Right to Sue". (Defendants' Exhibit 5.)
At this time, plaintiff is no longer employed by the School Board as a result of health problems. In September of 1996, plaintiff reported a knee injury to his employer. (Defendants' Exhibit 12.) He was cleared to return to work by Sheldon Cohen, M.D., shortly thereafter. (Defendants' Exhibit 13.) However, in October of 1996, plaintiff's physicians (John R. Patterson, M.D., Sheldon Cohen, M.D., and Arthur Wardell, M.D.), unanimously reported that due to his injury and the restrictions it placed upon his ability to squat, crawl, and climb, he could not return to his job as Clerk of the Works. (Defendants' Exhibit 16, Exhibit 17, Exhibit 18, Rich Aff.)
Plaintiff requested limited duty in November of 1996, at which point, he had not worked in nearly two months. The School Board searched all available jobs within the system to find a job that plaintiff could physically perform. (Rich.Aff.) Chappell was offered another job by the School Board (a custodial job), which he could physically perform, but he did not accept that offer. He was given a notice of his termination effective March 28, 1997, and took no administrative action to challenge that decision. (Rich Aff.)
On December 29, 1997, plaintiff filed this complaint in federal court alleging discriminatory employment practices in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3, and a deprivation of his Constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Under Rule 56, summary judgment should be granted only if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the ... moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). For the evidence to present a "genuine" issue of material fact, it must be "such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Facts are deemed material if they might affect the outcome of the case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In other words, the moving party's submission must foreclose the possibility of the existence of facts from which it would be open to a jury to make inferences favorable to the non-movant. Id.
In deciding a summary judgment motion, the court must view the record as a whole and in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Chappell. Terry's Floor Fashions, Inc. v. Burlington Indus., Inc., 763 F.2d 604, 610 (4th Cir.1985). Either party may submit as evidence "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with ... affidavits" to support or rebut a summary judgment motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Supporting and opposing affidavits must be based on personal knowledge and must set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence. Id. at 56(e). Furthermore, the party moving for summary judgment need not supply "affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponent's claim." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548.
Rule 56 mandates summary judgment against a party who "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The party who bears the burden of proving a particular element of a claim must "designate `specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial'" with respect to that element. Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)).
Courts must take special care in considering summary judgment in cases involving questions of motive, such as in this employment discrimination case. Ballinger v. North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, 815 F.2d 1001, 1004 (4th Cir.1987), see Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 364-65 (4th Cir.1985)(overruled on other grounds by: Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989)). However, "[t]he fact that motive is often the critical issue in employment discrimination cases does not mean that summary judgment is never an appropriate vehicle for resolution." Ballinger, 815 F.2d at 1005 (citations omitted). Where a plaintiff fails to set forth either a prima facie case of discrimination or a "genuine factual dispute over the employer's legitimate nondiscriminatory explanation," a defendant may prevail on summary judgment. Mitchell v. Data General Corp., 12 F.3d 1310, 1316-17 (4th Cir.1993).
With these controlling principles in mind, the Court turns to the merits of the motion.
Count 1 of the complaint alleges that during the period between November 1994, and April 1996, the defendants intentionally engaged in unlawful discriminatory and differential employment practices against plaintiff solely on account of, and in retaliation for, his filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and otherwise engaging in activities to oppose unlawful employment discrimination in violation of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. Count 2 relies upon the same facts in support of a claim that the individual defendants deprived the plaintiff of his constitutional rights, in violation of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The law requires a complaining party to file a charge with the EEOC within 180 days of the last act of discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). This time period is extended to 300 days when the claim is initially filed with a State or local "deferral agency". Id. The Court need not decide here whether Virginia has a qualifying deferral agency, because the claim here does not satisfy the 300 day deadline.
The last act complained of in the plaintiff's list was a "Late June 1995" employment evaluation which the plaintiff received. (Defendants' Exhibit 6, item # 12.) In support of this motion, the defendants have submitted evidence that the evaluation in question actually occurred on May 25, 1995. (See Troutman Aff.; Exhibit B thereto, copy of evaluation.) The plaintiff has offered no contrary evidence or argument in response, and in deposition testimony, the plaintiff acknowledged that he could not say whether the evaluation occurred on May 25, 1995, or at some other time. (Chappell Dep., p. 61, Exhibit A to defendants' rebuttal memorandum.) This record does not create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the last act of alleged discrimination, which the Court finds occurred on May 25, 1995.
Plaintiff argues that his complaint was timely, by stating that a letter dated November 13, 1995, sent by Chappell to the EEOC, constitutes a valid charge so as to toll the running of the statutory period. However, the law is clear that the filing of a sworn charge of discrimination with the EEOC is a mandatory prerequisite to the validity of the charge. The statute clearly states that "[c]harges shall be in writing under oath or affirmation and shall contain such information and be in such form as the Commission requires." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). This requirement of a sworn statement to complete the filing of a formal charge was recognized in Balazs v. Liebenthal, 32 F.3d 151 (4th Cir.1994)(citing, Hinton...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mohammed v. Cent. Driving Mini Storage, Inc.
...will not act as a ‘super-personnel department that reexamines an entity's business decisions.’ " Chappell v. School Bd. of City of Virginia Beach, 12 F.Supp.2d 509, 517 (E.D.Va.1998) (quoting Beall v. Abbott Laboratories, 130 F.3d 614, 620 (4th Cir.1997) (abrogated on other grounds)).46. "[......
-
Steele v. Blinken
...action.”). But “misunderstandings, personality conflicts, job performance evaluations, and purely administrative matters” do not. Chappell, 12 F.Supp.2d at 516 (emphasis Plaintiff alleges he received two less than “Outstanding” evaluations after he had lodged a complaint against the agency ......
-
Abdelbaki v. N. Va. Cmty. Coll.
... ALAELDIN ABDELBAKI, Plaintiff, v. NORTHERN VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No ... student allegedly attended a different school and had mailed ... his paper to Plaintiff, who had ... Mayor ... & City Council of Baltimore , 791 F.3d 500, 508 (4th ... actionable retaliation.” Chappell v. Sch. Bd. of ... City of Va. Beach , 12 F.Supp.2d ... ...
-
Stringfield v. Christopher Newport University
...to be mediate decisions and are therefore not covered by Title VII. See id. This Court in Chappell v. School Board of the City of Virginia Beach, 12 F.Supp.2d 509 (E.D.Va.1998) (Prince, J.), held that a plaintiff's claims, similar to those alleged here, did not establish a prima facie case ......