Finnie v. Lee Cnty., : 1:10cv64-A-S
| Decision Date | 17 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | NO.: 1:10cv64-A-S,: 1:10cv64-A-S |
| Parties | CRYSTAL N. FINNIE PLAINTIFF v. LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI and JIM H. JOHNSON, SHERIFF OF LEE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, In His Official Capacity DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
Presently before the Court are Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment [59, 67, 70].1 After considering the motions, response, rules, and authorities, the Court finds as follows:
BACKGROUND
In October 2004, Plaintiff Crystal Finnie began working for the Lee County Sheriff's Department. Plaintiff was employed as a detention officer at the Lee County Juvenile Detention Center ("JDC") until her termination in April 2009. Plaintiff had an array of job duties, as she was responsible for booking, searching, feeding, escorting, and transporting detainees, conducting searches of cells, and handling disturbances. It is undisputed that detention officers, like Plaintiff, are subject to a uniform policy that states, in pertinent part, that detention officers must wear pants furnished by the sheriff's department.
Plaintiff abided by this uniform policy, apparently without complaint, until September 2008. Plaintiff asserts that she converted to the Pentecostal faith in August 2008, and, due to this, she was under the conviction that she could no longer wear pants. In September 2008, Plaintiff allegedly met with Sheriff Jim Johnson, informed him that wearing pants would violate her religious beliefs, and requested an exemption from the uniform policy.2 Plaintiff asserts that Sheriff Johnson was, at that time, "real supportive" of her beliefs. At some point in or around September 2008,3 Plaintiff asked JDC administrator Steve White for permission to wear a skirt instead of the prescribed "pants-only" uniform. Steve White told Plaintiff that he would have to ask Sheriff Johnson.
Before hearing back from Sheriff Johnson or Steve White, Plaintiff began wearing a skirt4 to work on or about March 6, 2009.5 On March 16, 2009, after Plaintiff returned from escorting three juveniles to court, she was confronted by Corey Finnie,6 who informed Plaintiff that Steve White had stated that if Plaintiff wore her skirt again to work, she wouldbe suspended for three days without pay. Plaintiff was also directly approached by Steve White later that same day, and White confirmed what Corey Finnie had stated. After receiving this directive, Plaintiff asserts that she then personally appealed to Sheriff Johnson to allow her to wear a skirt. Sheriff Johnson told Plaintiff, on March 16, 2009, that he had one more call he was waiting on to confirm whether or not Plaintiff could wear a skirt while at work. He informed Plaintiff that he would get back in touch with her by the end of her shift. Around 5:45 p.m. on the same day, Plaintiff received a call from Steve White, informing her that she could either wear pants in compliance with the uniform policy or turn in a letter of resignation.
The following day, March 17, 2009, Plaintiff called Steve White and asked for permission to begin taking her accumulated vacation leave, apparently hoping that the Sheriff would reconsider his decision while she was on leave. While on leave, Plaintiff met with an attorney and, on March 19, 2009, she filed a charge of religious and gender discrimination with the EEOC. Plaintiff's attorney mailed a letter7 and a copy of Plaintiff's EEOC charge to Sheriff Johnson. Sheriff Johnson did not respond to the letter.8
In April 2009, after Plaintiff's vacation time was apparently used up, Plaintiff either called, or met with, Steve White to see if there was any change in the situation concerning the Sheriff's decision with respect to the uniform policy. White told Plaintiff that she would be required to wear pants. Specifically, according to Plaintiff, White stated, "just put your pantson and come back to work." Plaintiff again communicated to White that she could not wear pants based on religious reason. The very next day, Plaintiff met with Sheriff Johnson.9 At this meeting, Sheriff Johnson terminated Plaintiff's employment.
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on March 12, 2010, alleging that her termination violated her First Amendment rights of free speech and the free exercise of religion and constituted religious and gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendants have filed three Motions for Summary Judgment, arguing they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to all of Plaintiff's claims.
Summary judgment is warranted under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when evidence reveals no genuine dispute regarding any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The rule "mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, 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 Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986).
The party moving for summary judgment "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record]which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Id. at 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548. The nonmoving party must then "go beyond the pleadings" and "designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 324, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (citation omitted). In reviewing the evidence, factual controversies are to be resolved in favor of the nonmovant, "but only when . . . both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts." Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). When such contradictory facts exist, the Court may "not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 147 L. Ed. 2d 105 (2000). However, conclusory allegations, speculation, unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic arguments have never constituted an adequate substitute for specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. TIG Ins. Co. v. Sedgwick James of Wash., 276 F.3d 754, 759 (5th Cir. 2002); SEC v. Recile, 10 F.3d 1093, 1097 (5th Cir. 1997); Little, 37 F.3d at 1075.
Plaintiff has conceded her First Amendment free speech claim in her brief in opposition to summary judgment. As such, the Court does not analyze the issue, and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this claim.
Defendants contend that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the uniform policy utilized is rationally related to Lee County's legitimate interest in safety and security in the JDC. Plaintiff, in response, does not contend otherwise; instead, Plaintiffasserts that collateral estoppel prohibits Defendants from litigating this claim, as it was allegedly litigated before the Board of Review of the Mississippi Department of Employment Security ("MDES").10
In order to understand this issue, some background information is needed. After Plaintiff was terminated, she applied for unemployment benefits, and an Administrate Law Judge found in Plaintiff's favor. Defendants appealed to the Board of Review, which issued a remand order directing additional testimony to be taken. After such additional testimony had been gathered, the Board of Review issued a decision finding in favor of Plaintiff. Specifically, the Board of Review found - in pertinent part - as follows:
The question before the Board of Review, therefore, is whether there is a compelling state interest which overcomes the religious right and whether the state is pursuing this interest through the least restrictive means. The Board finds the employer did not meet its burden by showing the policy met a state [sic] compelling state interest. Specifically, the Board questions whether the claimant would be less able to perform her job in a skirt and finds that the employer did not provide evidence of the same. The Board also questions the employer's assertion that no accommodation could be made to adapt to the claimant's religious beliefs. In other words, the Board finds the employer did not pursue its stated objective using the least restrictive means available.
Lee County appealed the Board of Review decision that Plaintiff was entitled to unemployment benefits to the Circuit Court of Lee County pursuant to Mississippi CodeAnnotated § 71-5-531. On July 26, 2011, the circuit court ordered that the matter should be remanded to the Board of Review for additional fact finding. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court finds collateral estoppel does not prohibit the Defendants from litigating its defense to Plaintiff's free exercise claim.
Instead of the usual (i.e., defensive) use of collateral estoppel, Plaintiff seeks to apply it offensively, requesting that the Court declare that - as a matter of law - Defendants violated Plaintiff's rights under the Free Exercise Clause due to certain determinations made by the Mississippi Department of Employment Security. The law is clear that "when a state agency acting in a judicial capacity . . . resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate, federal courts must give the agency's fact-finding the same preclusive effect to which it would be entitled in the State's courts." Univ. of Tenn. v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 799, 106 S. Ct. 3220, 92 L. Ed. 2d 635 (1986) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). "Under Mississippi law, res judicata or collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of administrative decisions."11 Smith v. Univ. of...
To continue reading
Request your trial