Franks v. Chitwood
| Decision Date | 01 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 4:19-CV-096-HLM-WEJ |
| Parties | Kayla FRANKS, Plaintiff, v. Scott CHITWOOD, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Whitfield County, GA, and Paul Woods, in his individual capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Alan Howard Garber, Marc N. Garber, The Garber Law Firm, P.C., Marietta, GA, for Plaintiff.
Robert Harris Smalley, III, McCamy Phillips Tuggle & Fordham, Dalton, GA, Ronald R. Womack, Ryan L. Ray, Steven M. Rodham, Womack, Rodham & Ray, P.C., Lafayette, GA, for Defendants Scott Chitwood, Paul Woods.
This case is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Scott Chitwood ("Defendant Chitwood") and Paul Woods ("Defendant Woods") [109], on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [110], on the Final Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Walter E. Johnson [124], on Defendants’ Objections to the Final Report and Recommendation [126], and on Plaintiff's Objections to the Final Report and Recommendation [127].
1228 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) requires that in reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court therefore must conduct a de novo review if a party files "a proper, specific objection" to a factual finding contained in the report and recommendation. Macort v. Prem, Inc. , 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) ; Jeffrey S. by Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ. , 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990). If no party files a timely objection to a factual finding in the report and recommendation, the Court reviews that finding for clear error. Macort , 208 F. App'x at 784. Legal conclusions, of course, are subject to de novo review even if no party specifically objects. United States v. Keel , 164 F. App'x 958, 961 (11th Cir. 2006) ; United States v. Warren , 687 F.2d 347, 347 (11th Cir. 1982).
On May 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit. (Compl. (Docket Entry No. 1).) On June 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff asserted claims against Defendant Chitwood, the Sheriff of Whitfield County, Georgia, in his official capacity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for sex discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiff also asserted an individual capacity claim against Defendant Woods, a Captain with the Whitfield County Sheriff's Office (the "WCSO") under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of her right to equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
On May 20, 2021, Defendants Chitwood and Woods filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. (Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. (Docket Entry No. 109).) On that same day, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking summary judgment that Defendant Woods could not assert the qualified immunity defense as to her claim against him. (Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. (Docket Entry No. 110).)
On September 30, 2021, Judge Johnson issued his Final Report and Recommendation. (Final Report & Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 124).) Judge Johnson recommended that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Chitwood for a sexually hostile work environment ("SHWE"), as alleged in Count 4 and for retaliation, as alleged in Count 8. ( Id. ) Judge Johnson also recommended that the Court deny summary judgment on qualified immunity to Defendant Woods on Plaintiff's claim against him for deprivation of her Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause rights, as alleged in Count 9. ( Id. ) Judge Johnson, however, recommended that the Court grant summary judgment to Defendant Chitwood on Plaintiff's claim for constructive discharge, as contained in Count 2, as well as Plaintiff's claim for disparate treatment, as alleged in Count 6. ( Id. ) Judge Johnson also recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. ( Id. )
The Parties filed Objections to the Final Report and Recommendation. The time for responding to those Objections has expired, and the Court finds that the matter is ripe for resolution.
The Court follows the same procedures and rules that Judge Johnson followed when evaluating the Parties’ Statements of Material Fact. (Final Report & Recommendation at 2-5.) The Court finds that Judge Johnson properly evaluated Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment ("DSMF"), Plaintiff's response to DSMF ("PR-DSMF"), Plaintiff's Statement of Additional Material Facts relating to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment ("PSAMF"), and Defendants’ response to PSAMF ("DR-PSAMF"). Judge Johnson also correctly evaluated Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment ("PSUMF"), as well as Defendants’ response to PSUMF ("DR-PSUMF"). Finally, Judge Johnson properly found that Plaintiff was not entitled to file a Statement of Additional Material Facts in support of her own Motion for Summary Judgment, and he correctly struck that filing. ( Id. at 3-4.)2
Judge Johnson accurately set forth the factual background for this case, including evaluating the Parties’ various proposed facts and responses. (Final Report & Recommendation at 5-36.)3 The Court incorporates the factual background portion of the Final Report and Recommendation into this Order as if set forth fully herein.
The Court applies the same summary judgment standard as set forth in the Final Report and Recommendation. (Final Report & Recommendation at 36-38.)
3 Judge Johnson accurately set forth the law governing Plaintiff's Title VII SHWE claim. (Final Report & Recommendation at 39-55.) Judge Johnson correctly found that a genuine dispute remains as to whether the alleged harassment was based on sex, even though the alleged comments were not directed at Plaintiff. ( Id. at 40-41.) Judge Johnson also properly concluded that a genuine dispute remained as to whether the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive. ( Id. at 41-50.) Finally, the Court agrees with Judge Johnson that a genuine dispute remains as to whether Plaintiff can establish a basis for employer liability. ( Id. at 50-55.)
With all due respect to Defendants, nothing in their Objections warrants rejecting this portion of the Final Report and Recommendation. (Defs.’ Objs. at 3-19.) Contrary to Defendants’ arguments, Plaintiff presented enough evidence to show that the harassment was based on her sex, to demonstrate that the harassment was sufficiently severe and pervasive, and to show employer liability. The Court therefore adopts this portion of the Final Report and Recommendation, overrules Defendants’ corresponding objections, and denies Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to this claim.
The Court agrees with Judge Johnson that Plaintiff abandoned her separate Title VII constructive discharge claim against Defendant Chitwood. (Final Report & Recommendation at 55-56.) Plaintiff does not appear to object to this portion of the Final Report and Recommendation. ( See generally Pl.’s Objs.) The Court therefore adopts this portion of the Final Report and Recommendation and grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to this claim.
Judge Johnson accurately set forth the law governing Title VII disparate treatment claims. (Final Report & Recommendation at 57-71.) The Court agrees with Judge Johnson that Plaintiff did not produce direct evidence of discrimination. ( Id. at 58-59.) Judge Johnson correctly found that no genuine dispute remained as to Plaintiff's claim using the burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). ( Id. at 59-67.) Specifically, Plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action for purposes of her disparate treatment claim. ( Id. ) For the same reason, Plaintiff's disparate treatment claim fails under the "convincing mosaic" framework ( id. at 68-69), as well as under the "mixed motive" framework ( id. at 70). Plaintiff does not appear to object to this portion of the Final Report and Recommendation. ( See generally Pl.’s Objs.) The Court therefore adopts this portion of the Final Report and Recommendation and grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Title VII disparate treatment claim.
Judge Johnson found that Plaintiff's retaliation claim against Defendant Chitwood, as pleaded, failed because the evidence demonstrated that Defendant Chitwood did not know of Plaintiff's protected conduct. (Final Report & Recommendation at 72-74.) Judge Johnson, however, concluded that Plaintiff could assert a retaliation claim against Defendant Woods. ( Id. at 74 & n.59). Plaintiff and Defendants objected to this portion of the Final Report and Recommendation. (Pl.’s Objs. at 4-8; Defs.’ Objs. at 19-22.)
Defendants argue that Judge Johnson improperly recommended that the Court allow Plaintiff to amend her First Amended Complaint to assert a Title VII retaliation claim against Defendant Woods, and they contend that a party may not amend a complaint through argument in response to a summary judgment motion. (Defs.’ Objs. at 19-22.) Defendants also point out that Title VII does not provide for relief against individual employees. ( Id. at 21-22.)
Plaintiff, for her part, agrees that Title VII retaliation claims may proceed only against an employer and...
To continue reading
Request your trial