Hollins v. Premier Ford Lincoln Mercury Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 February 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 1:09CV314–A–D.
• Citation: 766 F.Supp.2d 736,111 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 947
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
• Parties: Tawania HOLLINS, Plaintiffv.PREMIER FORD LINCOLN MERCURY, INC., Defendant.

766 F.Supp.2d 736

111 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 947

Tawania HOLLINS, Plaintiff

v.PREMIER FORD LINCOLN MERCURY, INC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:09CV314–A–D.

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division.

Feb. 7, 2011.

Joseph Robert Murray, II, Harrison Law Office, PLLC, Ripley, MS, for Plaintiff.Berkley N. Huskison, Mitchell McNutt & Sams, Columbus, MS, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SHARION AYCOCK, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [25] and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Sur–Rebuttal [34]. After reviewing the motion, rules, and authorities, the Court finds as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a forty-three year old African American female, was initially hired as a salesperson at Premier Ford Lincoln Mercury, Incorporated (“Premier Ford”) on July 9, 2005. Plaintiff was hired by Premier Ford's Used Car Sales Manager Joe Bryan. Plaintiff voluntarily resigned from her employment at Premier Ford on July 13, 2007. Plaintiff told Bryan that the reason she was leaving was because she thought she could do better at Carl Hogan Honda since Cecil Hill, Premier Ford's Finance Manager, refused to provide her with the necessary support to secure financing for her car deals. Plaintiff contends that, before she resigned, she and another salesperson, Debbie Griffin, went and talked with Chris Keene, Premier Ford's General Manager, about how Hill handled their deals and the language Hill used when speaking to them.

After working at Carl Hogan Honda for approximately three months, Plaintiff called Bryan and expressed her desire to return to Premier Ford as a salesperson. Bryan contends that even though he had reservations about Plaintiff returning to work at Premier Ford, he nevertheless made the decision to rehire her. Plaintiff therefore resumed her employment at Premier Ford on September 12, 2007. Upon returning to work, Plaintiff concedes that she cannot recall work-related problems or issues with Cecil Hill. Plaintiff, however, does allege that at a work Christmas party in December 2007, Bryan commented on her dress and touched her calf, and that another coworker “cussed her out.”

In October 2008, Plaintiff injured her knee while at work. Plaintiff contends that she began having work-related problems after suffering this injury. While Plaintiff concedes that she was never prohibited from or reprimanded for leaving work in order to go to the doctor, Plaintiff claims that, after hurting her knee, she no longer had “normal conversations” with management. Plaintiff also asserts that, when she took a couple weeks off of work in January and February due to her knee injury, she was informed that her customer list was being distributed to other salespeople, and that she had been evicted from her office.

After returning to work from her knee injury, Plaintiff continued her work as a salesperson until February 6, 2009, when her employment was terminated. The reasons for Plaintiff's termination were that she allegedly displayed unprofessional conduct and interfered with another salesperson's customer in violation of Premier Ford's policy. On December 30, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging race discrimination, sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.¹ On November 24, 2010, Premier Ford filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to all of Plaintiff's claims, including Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages.

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is warranted under Rule 56(c) when evidence reveals no genuine dispute regarding any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). 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 it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The non-moving 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. Conclusory allegations, speculation, unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic arguments are not 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.1993); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc).

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.” Id. In the absence of proof, the court does not “assume that the nonmoving party could or would prove the necessary facts.” Id.

III. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Motion to File Sur–Rebuttal

On January 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Sur–Rebuttal to Defendant's Reply [34]. Plaintiff's sur-rebuttal is attached as Exhibit A to her Motion. Plaintiff claims that this sur-rebuttal “w[ill] benefit the court and help in clarifying the complex matter before it.” The Court, however, finds that Plaintiff's sur-rebuttal is a mere regurgitation of arguments already made either in her Complaint or her forty-one page Response in Opposition to Summary Judgment. As such, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Sur–Rebuttal is denied.

Title VI Sexually–Based Hostile Work Environment Claima. Timeliness of Plaintiff's EEOC Charge

Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to file her EEOC charge within 180 days of the sexual harassment she allegedly suffered while employed at Premier Ford. Consequently, Defendant states that Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim is time-barred. “A Title VII claimant must file charges with the EEOC within 180 days after the alleged illegal conduct.” Hood v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 168 F.3d 231, 232 (5th Cir.1999) (citations omitted). In response, Plaintiff contends that she may prove her hostile work environment claim with acts of harassment outside of the 180–day period, as long as some act contributing to the claim occurred within this filing period.

In National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 115–18, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002), the Supreme Court addressed for the first time under what circumstances a Title VII plaintiff may file suit based on incidents outside the charge-filing period. The Court first announced a bright-line rule that “discrete discriminatory acts are not actionable if time barred, even when they are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges” and that “[e]ach discrete discriminatory act starts a new clock for filing charges alleging that act.” Id. at 113, 122 S.Ct. 2061. The Court stated that it is “easy to identify” discrete acts, which include “termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire.” Id. at 114, 122 S.Ct. 2061. However, the Morgan Court went on to recognize that “[h]ostile work environment claims are different in kind from discrete acts.” Id. at 115, 122 S.Ct. 2061. The Court noted that the “very nature [of hostile work environment claims] involves repeated conduct[;]” thus, “[t]he ‘unlawful employment practice’ [ ] cannot be said to occur on any particular day.” Id., 122 S.Ct. 2061. The Court held that since “[a] hostile work environment claim is composed of a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one ‘unlawful employment’ practice[,] ... [i]t does not matter, for purposes of the statute, that some of the component acts of the hostile work environment fall outside the statutory time period. Provided that an act contributing to the claim occurs within the filing period, the entire time period of the hostile environment may be considered by a court for the purposes of determining liability.” Id. at 117, 122 S.Ct. 2061. Therefore, in this case, Plaintiff may use past acts to support her hostile work environment claim, as long as a related act contributing to the same actionable claim occurred within 180 days prior to Plaintiff's filing of her EEOC charge.

Plaintiff's EEOC charge was filed on May 22, 2009. Defendant contends that Plaintiff's entire claim is based on acts that allegedly occurred in 2007, before Plaintiff voluntarily resigned.² Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that she was sexually harassed after she was rehired at Premier Ford. Plaintiff asserts that Johnny Smith “cussed [her] out” shortly after she returned to work at Premier Ford in 2007. Further, she complains that Bryan touched her calf at work Christmas party in 2007. Even if both of these incidents are true, both still fall out of the 180–day filing period. However, Plaintiff also claims that Bryan called her a “bitch” on February 6, 2009; the day her employment was terminated. Assuming Bryan's language constitutes “harassment,” this “act” would fall within the 180–day period; thus, making Plaintiff's claim not time-barred.

b. Hostile Work Environment

Plaintiff asserts that she was subjected to a sexually-based hostile work environment while working at Premier Ford.³ Plaintiff may establish a violation of Title VII by proving that the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is so severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions of employment and creates a hostile or abusive working environment. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993); Woods v. Delta Beverage Group, Inc., 274 F.3d 295, 298–99 (5th Cir.2001). In order to establish a claim that sex discrimination has created an abusive or hostile work environment, a plaintiff must prove the following five elements: (1) that ...