Davis v. Legal Servs. Ala., Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2:18-cv-26-RAH-JTA |
| Parties | Artur DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. LEGAL SERVICES ALABAMA, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
Kenneth Jay Mendelsohn, Jemison & Mendelsohn, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff.
Albert Loring Vreeland, II, Whitney Ryan Brown, Lehr Middlebrooks Price & Vreeland, PC, Birmingham, AL, for Defendants.
Artur Davis ("Davis" or "Plaintiff") is a former U.S. Congressman, mayoral candidate for the City of Montgomery, Alabama, gubernatorial candidate for the State of Alabama, federal prosecutor, and litigator. In December 2016, he became the Executive Director for Legal Services Alabama, Inc. ("LSA"), a non-profit, public interest organization that provides civil legal services to low income clients in Alabama. That marriage, however, did not last long, as Davis resigned from the position approximately nine months later in August 2017 after complaints were lodged against him by two African American employees. Following his exit, Davis sued LSA, LaVeeda Battle ("Battle"), and Alex Smith ("Smith") (collectively, "Defendants") for race discrimination, retaliation, defamation, and conspiracy.
Pending before the Court is the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment ("Motion").1 (Doc. 39.) The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, the briefs filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, and the supporting and opposing evidentiary materials. In accordance with the governing standard, the Court concludes that the Motion is due to be granted.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343 and the jurisdictional grant in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. The Plaintiff and Defendants (collectively, "Parties") do not challenge venue, and the Court concludes that venue properly lies in the Middle District of Alabama. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
Montgomery-based, LSA is a non-profit, public interest organization that provides civil legal services to low-income clients throughout Alabama. (Doc. 41-1 at 2; Doc. 43-22 at 1.) Among the many services it provides, LSA helps qualified clients with legal issues involving domestic violence, garnishments, housing subsidies, mortgage modifications, public assistance, and other cases. See Brad Harper, Artur Davis Named Leader of State Legal Aid Group , MONTGOMERY ADVERTISER , Dec. 8, 2016.2 In addition, LSA supports local volunteer attorney programs so as to encourage lawyers throughout Alabama to take pro bono cases in their communities. See Bob Lowry, Lawyers Must Join Legal Aid Program , HUNTSVILLE TIMES , Oct. 19, 2007.
LSA is run by a Board of Directors ("Board"), which includes a four-member executive committee and twenty-two members from across the State. Board of Directors , LEGAL SERVICES ALABAMA , INC. , https://legalservicesalabama.org/ourstory-2/ (last visited July 10, 2020).
In December 2016, Davis was hired by LSA to serve as its new Executive Director, following the retirement of James H. Fry ("Fry"), after a purported national search. (Doc. 41-1 at 3; Doc. 43-22 at 1.) "The input we received from our partners, collaborators and staff on the skills needed for our next executive director strongly influenced our committee," Phil Mitchell ("Mitchell"), the Search Committee's Chair, said in a statement at the time. Harper, supra. "Mr. Davis has all the qualities needed to serve as LSA's executive director at the highest level and re-establish the organization as the leader in serving the civil legal needs of low income Alabamians." (Id. )
This excitement soon waned. Naturally, as Executive Director, Davis had his own ideas as to how LSA should be run. (Doc. 43-22 at 2-5.) These ideas were met with resistance from members of the Board, including Battle,3 as well as sundry staff members. (Id. at 5-7.) According to Davis, beginning in July and August, he was subjected to numerous instances of insubordination and poor employee attitude from several employees, including Jaffee Pickett ("Pickett"), an African American employee who served as the Assistant Executive Director at LSA. (Id. at 5-6.)
Eventually, sometime in August 2017, Pickett relayed to the Board several complaints made by staff members about the hostile work environment allegedly created by Davis. (Docs. 41-1 at 3; Doc. 41-2 at 77-80; Doc. 43-22 at 8.) On August 17, 2017, as these grievances developed, Davis emailed LSA board member, Mitchell, to inform him that he was considering departing LSA. (Doc. 41-4 at 45.)
The next day, the Board met. At the end of its discussion, the Board placed Davis on paid leave (suspension) pending an investigation into the staff complaints about Davis. (Doc. 41-2 at 83-86.) The nature of the suspension and the investigation were detailed in a lengthy letter signed by Battle in her capacity as President of the Board, and promptly sent to Davis. (Id. ) As this missive lays out, concerns had been expressed by staff and Board members about hiring, spending outside of budget, the creation of new initiatives without Board input, harassment and creation of a hostile work environment by Davis, and even statements by Davis critical of the Board. (Id. ) The letter concluded that Davis should refrain from making any public announcement that might reflect adversely upon LSA. (Id. at 85.)
Davis initially responded in two ways. That very evening, he emailed the Board to announce his intent to file an EEOC charge of discrimination. (Doc. 43-21 at 1; Doc. 43-22 at 8.) Next, before the Board even launched its investigation, Davis submitted his notice of resignation from LSA on August 22, 2017, effective September 23, 2017. (Doc. 41-1 at 4; Doc. 41-4 at 58; Doc. 43-22 at 8.) According to Davis, he resigned because he did not believe he would receive a fair shake and justice from any investigative process. (Doc. 43-1 at 24-25.) Nevertheless, Davis was paid through the end of September of 2017. (Id. at 21, 23.)
To conduct the investigation, the Board retained Delores R. Boyd ("Judge Boyd"), a retired United States Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 41-1 at 3.) After speaking with employees and reviewing a parade of documents, among other things, Judge Boyd issued her final report in September 2017. (Doc. 45-8 at 47-118.)
During the pendency of this investigation, on August 25, 2017, Davis published an article on AL.com providing his explanation as to why he resigned from LSA. (Doc. 41-4 at 59-62.) In the article, Davis did not allege discrimination and retaliation by LSA and its board members or employees. (Id. ) Instead, he described his resignation as representing the culmination of "a turbulent several weeks where ... [he] was expending more time clashing with a board president and a few dissident employees than ... [he] was spending on devising strategies to serve Alabama's low income families." (Id. ) The clashes had turned "very petty," and though he purportedly "asked the national Legal Services Corporation to take a hard look at the integrity and future of the Alabama program, which desperately needs an intervention," he "chose resignation rather than a protracted fight to regain authority." (Id. (emphasis added).) He did so, it would seem, because he had "other plans for ... [his] life, including a return to the public arena sooner or later," and had "maybe ... hit the wall on what ... [he] could do at Legal Services." (Id. ) He would instead "put" his energy into Montgomery's future, and into being another constructive voice in Alabama." (Id. ) Fittingly for such a long-time public servant, he signed off: "I'm still the grown version of a child who rose out of the poorest side of Montgomery, Alabama on the force of dreams." (Id. )
Pursuant to Rule 56(c), summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The party moving for summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the ‘pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 ( quoting Rule 56(c)(1)). This burden is not a light one. Harris v. Ostrout , 65 F.3d 912, 917 (11th Cir. 1995).
The movant may meet this burden by presenting evidence showing there is no dispute of material fact, or by showing that the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on which it bears the ultimate burden of proof. Celotex Corp. , 477 U.S. at 322-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548. A dispute of material fact "is ‘genuine’ ... if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). What is material is determined by the substantive law applicable to the case. Id. If the movant succeeds in demonstrating the absence of a material issue of fact, the burden shifts to the non-movant to establish, with evidence beyond the pleadings, that a genuine issue material to the non-movant's case exists. See Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta , 2 F.3d 1112, 1115-17 (11th Cir. 1993) ; see also id. at 1116, n.3 (discussing Rule 56(e)) ("When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported ... an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleading, but [his] response ... must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for...
To continue reading
Request your trial