Foster v. Biolife Plasma Servs., LP
| Decision Date | 24 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | 2:12-cv-707-JHH |
| Parties | TANISHA C. FOSTER, PLAINTIFF, v. BIOLIFE PLASMA SERVICES, LP, DEFENDANT. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
The court has before it the April 10, 2013 Motion (Doc. #18) of Defendant Biolife Plasma Services, LP ("BioLife") for Summary Judgment. Pursuant to the court's April 10, 2013, April 23, 1013 and May 22, 2013 orders (Docs. # 19, 21 & 25), the Motion (Doc. #18) for Summary Judgment was deemed submitted, without oral argument, on June 4, 2013.1 After careful review of the briefs and admissible evidence, the court concludes that the Motion (Doc. #18) for Summary Judgment is due to be granted for the following reasons.
Plaintiff Tanisha C. Foster commenced this action on February 29, 2012 byfiling a complaint in this court alleging violations of Title VII of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. More specifically, Plaintiff contends that she was terminated because of her race. Defendant's Motion (Doc. #18) for Summary judgment asserts that Plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie case of race discrimination and, in the alternative, Plaintiff has failed to rebut Defendant's legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for her termination; therefore, Defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment.
Both parties have filed briefs and submitted evidence in support of their respective positions. Defendant submitted evidence2 in support of its own Motion for Summary Judgment and filed a supporting brief on April 10, 2013. On May 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed a brief and evidence3 in opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. On June 3, 2013, Defendant filed a reply (Doc. #29) brief in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. All briefs and evidence have been considered by the court in making its determination on the Motion (Doc. #18) forSummary Judgment.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2000) The party asking for summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the pleadings or filings which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party has met his burden, Rule 56(e) requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by his own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions of file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324.
The substantive law will identify which facts are material and which are irrelevant. Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1023; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). All reasonable doubts about the facts and all justifiable inferences are resolved in favor of the non-movant. Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1023; Fitzpatrick v.City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993). A dispute is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1023. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. The method used by the party moving for summary judgment to discharge its initial burden depends on whether that party bears the burden of proof on the issue at trial. See Fitzpatrick, 2 F.3d at 1115-17 (citing United States v. Four Parcels of Real Property, 941 F.2d 1428 (11th Cir. 1991)(en banc)). If the moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, then it can only meet its initial burden on summary judgment by coming forward with positive evidence demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact; i.e. facts that would entitle it to a directed verdict if not controverted at trial. Fitzpatrick, 2 F.3d at 1115. Once the moving party makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to produce significant, probative evidence demonstrating a genuine issue for trial.
If the moving party does not bear the burden of proof at trial, it can satisfy its initial burden on summary judgment in either of two ways. First, the moving party may produce affirmative evidence negating a material fact, thus demonstrating that the non-moving party will be unable to prove its case at trial. Once the moving partysatisfies its burden using this method, the non-moving party must respond with positive evidence sufficient to resist a motion for directed verdict at trial.
The second method by which the moving party who does not bear the burden of proof at trial can satisfy its initial burden on summary judgment is to affirmatively show the absence of evidence in the record to support a judgment for the non-moving party on the issue in question. This method requires more than a simple statement that the non-moving party cannot meet its burden at trial but does not require evidence negating the non-movant's claim; it simply requires the movant to point out to the district court that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. Fitzpatrick, 2 F.3d at 1115-16. If the movant meets its initial burden by using this second method, the non-moving party may either point out to the court record evidence, overlooked or ignored by the movant, sufficient to withstand a directed verdict, or the non-moving party may come forward with additional evidence sufficient to withstand a directed verdict motion at trial based on the alleged evidentiary deficiency. However, when responding, the non-movant can no longer rest on mere allegations, but must set forth evidence of specific facts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 358 (1996) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992)).
Defendant BioLife collects high-quality plasma which is processed into plasma-based therapies to be used in the treatment of disorders such as hemophilia and immune system deficiencies, as well as victims of shock and burns. (Stevick Decl. ¶ 3.) BioLife operates numerous plasma collection facilities throughout the country where individuals donate plasma and laboratories where the donations are screened for viruses using polymerase chain reaction ("PCR") technology. (Foster Dep. at 57, 62; Stevick Decl. ¶ 4.)
BioLife is highly regulated by the Food and Drug Administration5 and maintains numerous Standard Operating Procedures ("SOPs") outlining in detail how procedures must be conducted to ensure compliance with federal law. (Foster Dep. at 53-54.) The SOPs contain detailed instructions regarding how not to change documents to avoid implications of falsification. (Id. at 58-59; Stevick Dep. at 154-55, 180.) BioLife defines falsification was "knowingly producing documentation that is in some way untrue or meant to deceive." (Exh. 5 to Stevick Dep.)
If a procedure is not followed according to the SOPs, then a Nonconformance has occurred. (Stevick Dep. at 76.) If the Nonconformance is attributable to a collection center, and not the lab, then an external Nonconformance has occurred and requires an external Nonconformance form ("ENC form"). (Id. at 78-79, 92, 94, 118, 170, 210.) On the other hand, when an error is made inside the lab, an internal Nonconformance form must be completed. (Id. at 76.) Both nonconformance forms are BioLife's way to documenting when its SOPs are not followed. (Id.) BioLife maintains that it is important to detect and document nonconformances because if they are not detected, unviable samples may proceed to pooling and testing, which creates the possibility of inaccurate results and leads to possibly tainted plasma. (Id. at 124-26, 134-35.)
BioLife has SOPs that govern the process of receiving shipments of plasma at labs from donor center. (Stevick Dep. at 173-75; Pl. Exh. 3.) When plasma samples are delivered to the lab, they first go through the receiving department where a technician reviews the samples and accompanying Sample Shipment Information form ("SSI form") to verify that they meet BioLife's SOPs regarding sample shipments. (Stevick Dep. at 12-23, 49, 50, 55.) Under BioLife's SOPs, all plasma samples must be received at the lab the day after they were shipped. (Stevick Dep. at 174.) The technician must document when the samples are received, and arespecifically required to check that the shipping and receiving dates are consecutive. (Id. at 175-75.) If the shipping and receiving dates are not consecutive, an ENC must be generated to determine the length of time the samples were in transit.6 (Id. at 79.)
After the samples are received and checked for consecutive dates, the samples then go in the freezer, and the SSI forms go through a quality check with the quality assurance department of the PCR lab. (Stevick Dep. at 55-56.) Next, the samples go to the processing department of the PCR labs where they are grouped together into bundles of 512 samples and prepared for pooling. (Id. at 58.) The SSI forms for the bundle of 512 samples are put into one folder7 and brought with the samples to the pooling department where the samples will be pooled and a master sample is created that is sent for virus testing. (Id. at 60-62.) The folder containing the SSI forms then goes through operations review by a pooling technician.8 (Id. at 64-65.) If no errors are found during the operations review, the folder is routed to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial