Howse v. Metro. Gov't
| Decision Date | 13 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. 3:18-01148,3:18-01148 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
| Parties | ROBERT L. HOWSE v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE |
By Order entered November 8, 2018 (Docket Entry No. 6), this pro se case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Court.
Presently pending is the motion for summary judgment of Defendant Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (Docket Entry No. 56). Plaintiff has responded in opposition to the motion. See Docket Entry Nos. 62-67. For the reasons set out below, the Court recommends that the motion be granted.
Robert L. Howse ("Plaintiff") is a resident of Nashville, Tennessee. He was formerly employed by the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County ("Metro"), working for the Metropolitan Police Department of Nashville ("the Police Department") from July 2005 to September 2017. On October 19, 2018, he filed this pro se lawsuit against Metro, the Police Department, the Metro Water Services Department ("the Water Department"), and seven employees of the Police Department. See Complaint (Docket Entry No. 1) at 1-3. Plaintiff, who is African-American, alleges that he was subjected to various forms of employment discrimination at the Police Department because of his race, sex, and disability, and that he was also retaliated against because he complained about the alleged discrimination and retaliation. Id. He seeks damages and injunctive relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. Id. at 4. Plaintiff requests a trial by jury.
After early motions to dismiss were filed by several Defendants, the Court dismissed all Defendants except for Defendant Metro and dismissed Plaintiff's RICO claim. See Memorandum Opinion and Order entered April 29, 2019 (Docket Entry No. 33) at 7. The Court also struck an amended complaint filed by Plaintiff. Id. Pursuant to scheduling orders, pretrial activity occurred in the case. It appeared in the summer and fall of 2019 that Plaintiff might obtain counsel and the case was stayed during this period, but an appearance by counsel was never entered on behalf of Plaintiff and the stay was lifted.1 There are no pending motions other than the motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff's pro se complaint consists of a form complaint and attachments. Plaintiff's supporting factual allegations are set out in a narrative summary that is attached to the form complaint. Id. at 17-19. Included as part of his complaint are four charges of discrimination that he filed with the Tennessee Human Rights Commission, respectively, on May 12, 2017 ("May 12 Charge"), October 23, 2017 ("October 23 Charge"), August 19, 2018 ("August 19 Charge"), and September 11, 2018 ("September 11 Charge'), and right-to-sue letters from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for each of his charges of discrimination. See Complaint at 8-16. Also attached to the complaint are whatappear to be a summary that he wrote about his May 12 Charge, id. at 20-21, and a copy of a internal "formal complaint" that he filed with "O.P.A." on May 22, 2017. Id. at 21-23.
Given a liberal reading of the complaint and attachments, Plaintiff's lawsuit is based upon events that began at the Police Department in 2016 when he worked as a Police Operations Coordinator 1. He alleges that after not being selected for Police Department positions for which he applied, he complained that white females were being treated more favorably by being selected for the positions and by being given better assignments. He asserts that he continued to apply for numerous positions, but that white females, many of whom he alleges were unqualified, were selected to fill these positions. He lists 10 specific positions for which he was not selected but asserts that he applied for 70 positions and made 180 transfer requests without success and that he was kept in "low level divisions such as Records." Id. at 18.
Plaintiff alleges that he began to have work related problems after making his complaint and after he "showed some potential signs of success in [the] discrimination case." Id. at 17. He also alleges that he was retaliated against after he complained about what he thought was a racially discriminatory management structure and unequal compensation and after filing the May 12 Charge. Plaintiff asserts that the retaliation took the form of a "trumped up 37-day suspension," and his termination from employment. Id. at 17. He alleges that he was subjected to a toxic work environment and to harassing and intimidating behavior by Police Department staff such as witness intimidation, stalking, invasion of privacy, withholding information, falsifying records, pervasive conduct, and negligence. Id. Additionally, in his May 12 Charge, Plaintiff states that he received disciplinary write-ups despite never receiving them prior to his complaint, id. at 9, and, in his October 23 Charge, Plaintiff states that he was moved between departments and received an adverse employment evaluation. Id. at 12.
Plaintiff contends that Defendant's wrongful actions continued into 2018 after he was no longer employed with the Police Department. He asserts that he was offered a position at the Water Department and was given a start date but that the job offer was rescinded before he could begin working. Plaintiff maintains that the job offer was rescinded because the Police Department gave him a negative employment reference and because of the form of his "discharge categorization." Id. at 14 and 16. He further contends that he has been impeded in his ability to obtain an attorney or represent himself because the Police Department has marked files as confidential and refuses to release the records to him.
Finally, Plaintiff asserts that he was discriminated against when he requested a reasonable accommodation for a "dysfunctional breathing/lung system." Id. at 5. Although his Complaint contains virtually no factual allegations about this claim, Plaitniff asserts in his May 12 Charge that he requested a reasonable accommodation in February 2017 but that it was not implemented despite being recommended by his physician and the ADA Coordinator. Id. at 9. Plaintiff also contends that his request for an accommodation was a reason for the alleged retaliation that he experienced. Id. at 9 and 12.
Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff was not selected to fill positions within the Police Department but contends that either he did not actually apply or withdrew his applications for several of the positions or he was not selected because he was not as qualified as the selected individuals. Defendant further acknowledges that Plaintiff was subjected to three disciplinary suspensions from work during 2017 and was ultimately terminated from employment but contends that the undisputed facts show that the adverse employment actions were taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff did make a request to be moved from the Records Division dueto a health condition and was temporarily moved but was moved back to the Records Division when he failed to provide the Police Department with any evidence that he required a disability accommodation. Finally, Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff filed numerous complaints and grievances about issues in his workplace but asserts that those matters were heard and resolved in accordance with department policy and denies that Plaintiff was retaliated against because of his complaints and grievances or because of his charges of discrimination.
Defendant raises two main arguments as to why it should be granted summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, Defendant argues that some of Plaintiff's Title VII claims cannot be reviewed by this Court because (1) the res judicata doctrine precludes review of those claims that were heard and decided against Plaintiff in proceedings before the Metropolitan Civil Service Commission ("Commission") and (2) any claims that are based upon events occurring more than 300 days before the May 12 Charge were not timely raised in an administrative charge of discrimination and are therefore time barred. Second, Defendant contends that Plaintiff's claims fail on their merits because Plaintiff has not set forth evidence upon which any reasonable conclusion could be reached that he was the victim of unlawful discrimination or retaliation. Defendant supports its motion with a memorandum of law (Docket Entry No. 58), a statement of undisputed material facts ("SUMF") (Docket Entry No. 58), excerpts from Plaintiff's deposition transcript (Docket Entry No. 58-1), and the declarations and exhibits attached thereto of Suzanne Bibb ("Bibb") (Docket Entry No. 59) and Damian Huggins ("Huggins") (Docket Entry No. 60). Bibb is the MNPD Human Resources Director and Huggins is the Deputy Chief over the MNPD Administrative Services Bureau.
Plaintiff's response consists of: (1) a "Response and Rebuttal" to the SUMF (Docket Entry No. 62); (2) his own unsworn declaration (Docket Entry Nos. 63 and 67); (3) a list of 22 positions for which he was not selected between November 2015 and August 2017(Docket Entry No. 64); and, (4) an undated and unsigned document entitled "Record's Request for Restructure" (Docket Entry No. 65), which appears to be a copy of a document that he submitted to his supervisors at the Police Department with suggestions about how to...
To continue reading
Request your trial