Frazier v. Smith
| Decision Date | 26 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A. CV297-136.,CIV.A. CV297-136. |
| Citation | 12 F.Supp.2d 1362 |
| Parties | Inez FRAZIER, Plaintiff, v. William E. SMITH, Sheriff, Camden County, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Sheriff; Charlie Easterling, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Chief Deputy Sheriff; and Camden County Board of Commissioners, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
David R. Osborne, Brunswick, Christian J. Steinmetz, III, Clark & Clark, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff.
Terry Lee Readdick, G. Todd Carter, Whelchel, Brown, Readdick & Bumgartner, Brunswick, GA, for Defendants.
Plaintiff, Inez Frazier ("Frazier"), alleges racial discrimination and hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq. (1994), discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C.A. § 12112 et seq. (1995), and intentional infliction of emotional distress in violation of Georgia law. Currently before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Plaintiff's request for oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's request for oral argument will be DENIED.
Ms. Frazier is a black female, who worked for the Camden County Sheriff's Department (the "Department") from 1984 until she was terminated on August 1, 1995. Sheriff Smith, one of the named Defendants, was Camden County Sheriff throughout Plaintiff's employment. During her tenure, Plaintiff rose from the position of radio dispatcher to that of jail administrator. She was promoted to the rank of captain and the position of jail administrator in January 1993. As jail administrator, she was responsible for the operation of the Camden County jail and answered either to Sheriff Smith or Charlie Easterling ("Easterling"), Chief Deputy Sheriff.
Plaintiff alleges that Easterling, a white man, used racial slurs in the workplace to refer to her and others. Plaintiff contends that Easterling called some people "niggers." She claims that this practice undermined her authority within the jail and created a hostile work environment. Plaintiff complained of Easterling's behavior to Sheriff Smith, as well as to other employees.
Plaintiff also contends that she was discriminated against on the basis of her disability, namely, carpal tunnel syndrome. This condition made it impossible for her to perform some of her job duties. She requested certain accommodations for her condition, but the Department did not comply with her requests. As a result, on July 24, 1995, she was placed on temporary medical leave.
On July 25, 1995, an inmate at the Camden County jail escaped. After the escape, Sheriff Smith ordered an investigation. After consulting with Easterling about Plaintiff, Sheriff Smith terminated Ms. Frazier on August 1, 1995. Two other employees were given the option of resigning or facing termination in connection with the escape. Sheriff Smith contends that Plaintiff's termination was based upon the escape and other complaints he had received about Plaintiff's performance. James Proctor ("Proctor"), a white male who is a Camden County Commissioner, succeeded Plaintiff as jail administrator.
Defendants have moved for summary judgment raising a plethora of arguments. Summary judgment requires the movant to establish the absence of genuine issues of material fact, such that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Lordmann Enters., Inc. v. Equicor, Inc., 32 F.3d 1529, 1532 (11th Cir.1994). After the movant meets this burden, "the non-moving party must make a sufficient showing to establish the existence of each essential element to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Howard v. BP Oil Co., 32 F.3d 520, 524 (11th Cir.1994) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). The non-moving party to a summary judgment motion only must make this showing after the moving party has satisfied its burden. Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir.1991).
The Court should consider the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits in the case before reaching its decision, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), and all reasonable inferences will be made in favor of the non-movant. Griesel v. Hamlin, 963 F.2d 338, 341 (11th Cir.1992). However, to survive summary judgment, the plaintiff must present more than a mere "scintilla of evidence." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2512, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 214 (1986). "[T]here must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Id. See also Mize v. Jefferson City Bd. of Educ., 93 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir.1996).
Defendants argue that Plaintiff is not an employee protected by Title VII. (Defs.' Br. Supp. Summ. J. at 5). Specifically, Defendants contend that Plaintiff was a member of Sheriff Smith's personal staff and is excluded from the coverage of Title VII. (Id. at 6-7). Plaintiff claims that she was not a member of the Sheriff's personal staff and should be allowed to proceed with her Title VII claim. (Pl.'s Br. Opposing Summ. J. at 7).
In order for an individual to have a cognizable claim under Title VII, the person must be an employee, as defined in 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e(f) (1994).
The term "employee" means an individual employed by an employer, except that the term "employee" shall not include any person elected to public office in any State or political subdivision of any State by the qualified voters thereof, or any person chosen by such officer to be on such officer's personal staff, or an appointee on the policy making level or an immediate adviser with respect to the exercise of the constitutional or legal powers of the office.
42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e(f). The determination of whether an individual should be considered an employee under Title VII is governed by federal law. EEOC v. Reno, 758 F.2d 581, 584 (11th Cir.1985); Calderon v. Martin County, 639 F.2d 271, 272-73 (5th Cir. Unit B Mar. 13, 1981).1
Within the definition of "employee," Congress has provided an exception for the personal staff of qualified elected officials. This exception should be construed narrowly. EEOC v. Reno, 758 F.2d at 584; Wall v. Coleman, 393 F.Supp. 826, 828 (S.D.Ga.1975). The entire staff of an elected official is not considered "personal staff," or else the word "personal" would have no meaning. Cromer v. Brown, 88 F.3d 1315, 1322 (4th Cir.1996). In fact, the term "personal staff" "... embodies the general and traditional proposition that positions of confidentiality, policy-making or acting and speaking on behalf of the chief are truly different from other kinds of employment." Shahar v. Bowers, 114 F.3d 1097, 1104 n. 15 (11th Cir.1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 693, 139 L.Ed.2d 638 (1998). Personal staff includes only those staff members in highly intimate or sensitive positions of responsibility. Cromer, 88 F.3d at 1322; Montgomery v. Brookshire, 34 F.3d 291, 295 (5th Cir.1994). In this case, all parties agree that Sheriff Smith is an elected official and that Plaintiff was on his staff. The question remains, however, whether Plaintiff, a jail administrator, should be considered a member of his personal staff.
The Eleventh Circuit never has addressed whether the members of a sheriff's staff are considered the personal staff of an elected official. In the context of elected state attorneys, the Eleventh Circuit consistently has found that assistant state attorneys should be considered the personal staff of the elected attorney for purposes of Title VII. Shahar, 114 F.3d at 1104 n. 15; EEOC v. Reno, 758 F.2d at 584; Wall, 393 F.Supp. at 828. However, this conclusion is based on the facts that the assistant state attorneys possess the same powers and responsibilities as the state attorney, serve at the pleasure of the state attorney, and are responsible for making policy. Shahar, 114 F.3d at 1104 n. 15; EEOC v. Reno, 758 F.2d at 584.
Other courts that have addressed the issue of whether deputy sheriffs are exempt under Title VII have declined to adopt a per se rule regarding their status. See Calderon, 639 F.2d at 273; Cromer, 88 F.3d at 1322; Montgomery, 34 F.3d at 296; United States v. Gregory, 818 F.2d 1114, 1117 (4th Cir.1987); Curl v. Reavis, 740 F.2d 1323, 1328 (4th Cir.1984); Owens v. Rush, 654 F.2d 1370, 1376 (10th Cir.1981). Instead, courts have relied on an analysis of the particular facts of each case in light of certain factors, including: (1) the sheriff's authority to hire, promote and terminate the employee, (2) the employee's level within the chain of command, (3) the presence of an intimate working relationship between the employee and the sheriff, (4) the involvement of the employee in policy-making decisions, (5) whether the employee worked in the sheriff's campaign, and (6) whether the sheriff directly supervises the employee.2 Cromer, 88 F.3d at 1322; Gregory, 818 F.2d at 1117; Curl, 740 F.2d at 1328; Owens, 654 F.2d at 1376. Since this determination demands extensive factual analysis, summary judgment rarely is appropriate on this exemption. Calderon, 639 F.2d at 273; Montgomery, 34 F.3d at 295; Dubisar-Dewberry v. District Attorney's Office of Twelfth Judicial Circuit, 927 F.Supp. 1479, 1483 (M.D.Ala.1996).
The Fourth Circuit's decision in Cromer illustrates the detailed factual analysis that is required. In Cromer, the court was faced with the issue of whether an employee of the sheriff's department was a member of the sheriff's personal staff and not covered by Title VII. 88 F.3d at 1322. The court concluded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hudson v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co.
...by touching or other conduct that escalates the harassment, can be enough to sustain a complaint. See, e.g., Frazier v. Smith, 12 F.Supp.2d 1362, 1370 (S.D.Ga.1998) ("repeated barrage of racially offensive remarks," including some addressed directly to Plaintiff's face, suffice to overcome ......
-
Manders v. Lee
...their sheriffs, it cedes to counties no meaningful level of control over a sheriff's law enforcement activities); Frazier v. Smith, 12 F.Supp.2d 1362, 1369 (S.D.Ga. 1998) (declining to dismiss action against the sheriff in his official capacity as redundant to the action against the county ......
-
Grech v. Clayton County, Ga.
...their sheriffs, it cedes to counties no meaningful level of control over a sheriff's law enforcement activities); Frazier v. Smith, 12 F.Supp.2d 1362, 1369 (S.D.Ga.1998) (declining to dismiss action against the sheriff in his official capacity as redundant to the action against the county b......
-
Cobb v. Marshall, Civil Action No. 2:06cv675-ID.
...reasonable to assume that Defendant had notice of Plaintiffs charge and that the above purposes were fulfilled. See Frazier v. Smith, 12 F.Supp.2d 1362, 1369 (S.D.Ga.1998) (where only the Camden County Sheriffs Department was named in the EEOC charge, the court declined to dismiss the Camde......