Hudson v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co.

Decision Date28 March 2001
Docket NumberNo. 1:99-CV-2287-JEC.,1:99-CV-2287-JEC.
Citation209 F.Supp.2d 1301
PartiesSara L. HUDSON, Plaintiff, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. and Norfolk Southern Corp., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

Charles Winfred Tab Billingsley, Jr., Rose E. Goff, Greene Buckley Jones & McQueen, Atlanta, GA, for plaintiff.

Edward Scott Smith, Jeffrey D. Mokotoff, Ford & Harrison, Atlanta, GA, for defendants.

ORDER

CARNES, District Judge.

This case is presently before the Court on defendant's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [26] and plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [29]. The Court has reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties and, for the reasons set out below, concludes that defendant's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [26] should be SUSTAINED and plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [29] should be OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [25] as to all claims, except the retaliatory discipline claim. The Court OVERRULES the Report and Recommendation as to that claim and GRANTS defendant's motion for summary judgment on it, as well.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that her employer, Norfolk Southern Corporation (hereinafter "NS"), is liable to her under Title VII for (1) sexual harassment resulting in a hostile work environment, (2) discriminatory discharge, (3) discriminatory discipline, and (4) retaliation. After a thorough recitation of the facts,1 Magistrate Judge Hagy concluded that plaintiff had failed to state a claim under Title VII for a hostile work environment or for discrimination in the terms of her employment. (Mag. J.'s Rep. & Rec.[25].) As to the claim for retaliation, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff had failed to state a claim as to her discharge, but had sustained her burden in alleging retaliation in regard to the loss of her bonus and suspension in 1997. (Id. at 45-61.)

Both parties have filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Defendant NS2 argues that the magistrate judge erred in allowing to go forward the retaliation claim based on the loss of plaintiff's bonus and suspension. (Def.'s Objs. to Mag. J.'s Rep. & Rec. [26].) Plaintiff agues that the magistrate judge erred in dismissing her hostile work environment, sexual discrimination, and retaliatory discharge claims. (Pl.'s Objs. to Rep. & Rec. [29].) The Court addresses plaintiff's objections first, then defendant's.

DISCUSSION
I. Plaintiff's Objections

Plaintiff brings several objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation dismissing her sexual harassment and discrimination claims. (Pl.'s Objs. to Mag. J.'s Rep. & Rec. [29].) First, plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge erred in concluding that because much of Herren's abuse of female coworkers was not in plaintiff's presence, the environment was not hostile. (Id. at 3.) Second, plaintiff claims that the magistrate judge should have considered the behavior he classified as "boorish," predominantly the "silent treatment" behavior, in assessing the hostility of the environment. (Id. at 4.) Third, plaintiff claims that the magistrate judge was incorrect in concluding that the term "bitch" was not a gender specific term. (Id. at 5-6.) Next, plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge's conclusion that much of Herren's behavior was attributable to a "personality conflict" between him and plaintiff rather than sexual discrimination. (Id. at 7.) Lastly, plaintiff claims that the magistrate judge erred in dismissing her retaliatory discharge claim. (Id. at 17.)

After a review of plaintiff's objections, this Court concludes that they are unfounded. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation addressed each of the issues contained in plaintiff's objections and rejected them. This Court agrees with the reasoning contained in the very thorough Report and Recommendation and concludes that the magistrate judge was correct to dismiss plaintiff's hostile work environment and discriminatory discharge claims. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES plaintiff's objections and AFFIRMS the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation as to these claims.

II. Defendant's Objections

Having prevailed on its motion for summary judgment on all claims except one, defendant brings only one objection to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation — that the magistrate judge erred in allowing plaintiff's retaliatory discipline claim to go forward. (Def.'s Objs. to Mag. J.'s Rep. & Rec. [26].) In particular, defendant objects to the following conclusions:

(a) the Magistrate Judge's determination that a jury issue exists as to whether NS's legitimate non-discriminatory reason for suspending Plaintiff and eliminating her bonus is pretextual. (R & R, p. 60).

(b) the Magistrate Judge's determination that Plaintiff's November 5, 1997 e-mail, combined with her subsequent meeting with Taylor, Holliday and Thomas, and her November 18, 1997 letter, constitutes protected opposition under Title VII (R & R, p. 48);

(c) the Magistrate Judge's determination that Plaintiff had a "good faith, reasonable belief" that NS engaged in unlawful discrimination (R & R, pp. 48-51); and

(d) the Magistrate Judge's determination that a causal connection existed between any protected activity and Plaintiff's suspension and bonus elimination. (R & R, pp. 53-54).

(Id. at 2.)

III. Plaintiff's Retaliatory Discipline Claim
A. Background3

Plaintiff was employed by NS from 1974 until her termination on June 26, 1998. It appears that plaintiff had no problems at work until 1991, when she was disciplined for making a large number of personal photocopies on a NS copy machine. Plaintiff admitted to making the copies, but maintained that they were authorized. As a result of this incident, her bonus for that year was eliminated and she was issued a warning that any further instances of failing to tell the truth could result in stronger sanctions, including dismissal.

Around May 1995, plaintiff's title changed to systems coordinator in network support services. This position entailed shift work, either from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., 3 p.m. till 11 p.m., or 7 a.m. till 3 p.m. Clyde "Buster" Herren was also a systems coordinator in network support services. Although Herren and plaintiff necessarily worked different shifts, they periodically encountered each other on shift changes when it was sometimes necessary to exchange information. Plaintiff states that, initially, she had no problems with Herren.

Plaintiff's next disciplinary episode occurred in August 1997. Herren filed a complaint against plaintiff alleging that she had made false statements about him to a co-worker, Kim Lyons.4 Specifically, Herren alleged that plaintiff told Lyons that Herren had made a clandestine phone call to supervisor Taylor complaining that Lyons was late for work.5 Plaintiff maintains that she never made such a statement to Lyons, but Lyons confirmed Herren's account. At a meeting held with plaintiff, Herren, Lyons, Taylor, and Don Holliday, NS's director of computer operations, plaintiff was told that a record of the meeting and a copy of Herren's complaint would be placed in her employment file, but that no further action would be taken provided there were no future incidents.

It was after this incident that the relationship between plaintiff and Herren began to sour. Plaintiff claims that Herren began to give her the "silent treatment" during shift changes and refused to answer her questions. Plaintiff alleges that she also became aware, through conversations with co-workers, that Herren used abusive language in the workplace. Plaintiff, however, only heard one such conversation directly, and this involved Herren making fun of gays. (Hudson Dep. at 78.) Plaintiff states that she also witnessed an incident in which Herren refused to speak to co-worker Connie Walden, who was relieving him on a shift change, and an incident in which Herren and co-worker Gary Joiner got in an argument over smoking.

Plaintiff first complained about Herren on November 5, 1997.6 The basis for plaintiff's complaint was that she felt "threatened" by Herren. Management investigated the claim and concluded that the complaint was without merit. On November 18, 1997, plaintiff again wrote management, complaining about the outcome of the investigation and making further allegations regarding Herren's workplace behavior. Approximately a month later, management informed plaintiff that it had conducted a follow-up investigation and had found that there was no evidence that Herren had created an unsafe or hostile work environment. The letter also stated that, nonetheless, they had found that Herren had used racial and other inappropriate language in the workplace and that he would be disciplined accordingly.

The letter further stated that the investigation showed that plaintiff had not been completely forthright during the investigation. In response to this finding of untruthfulness, taken together with her past incidents of untruthfulness at work, NS suspended plaintiff for thirty days without pay and took away her annual bonus. The letter further noted that any future episodes of untruthfulness would result in termination.

In response to this action, plaintiff filed an EEOC complaint, alleging discrimination based on sex. Several months later, plaintiff allegedly assaulted a black co-worker, Denise Clark, who was annoying plaintiff by making noises while she, Clark, was eating an apple. Plaintiff jammed her fingers into Clark's jaw, causing substantial pain, according to Clark. Although plaintiff insisted that she had administered only a light touch that was meant to be reassuring to Clark, Clark indicated that the "touch" was forceful enough to cause her pain and to trigger an immediate trip to a doctor, as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
130 cases
  • Brandon v. Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems, Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-2162-RLV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • September 29, 2005
    ...to respond to an argument or otherwise address a claim, the Court deems such argument or claim abandoned." Hudson v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 209 F.Supp.2d 1301, 1324 (N.D.Ga.2001) (citing Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Corp., 43 F.3d 587, 599 (11th Cir.1995) (en banc)); see also Bute v. Schul......
  • Coal. for Good Governance v. Kemp
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • August 20, 2021
    ...address a claim, the [c]ourt deems such argument or claim abandoned" (alteration in original) (quoting Hudson v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. , 209 F. Supp. 2d 1301, 1324 (N.D. Ga. 2001) )).20 "[D]ecisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ... handed down by that court prior......
  • McCabe v. Daimler AG & Mercedes-Benz United States, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:12–cv–2494–TCB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • June 7, 2013
    ...abandoned any unjust enrichments claims they previously asserted based on the purchases of their vehicles. Hudson v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 209 F.Supp.2d 1301, 1324 (N.D.Ga.2001) (“When a party fails to respond to an argument or otherwise address a claim, the Court deems such argument or claim......
  • Pierri v. Cingular Wireless, LLC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • October 18, 2005
    ...or of the offended party are not counted. Gupta, 212 F.3d at 583 (quoting Mendoza, 195 F.3d at 1245); Hudson v. Norfolk S. R.R. Co., 209 F.Supp.2d 1301, 1316 n. 19 (N.D.Ga.2001) ("Title VII does not prohibit `harassment' in and of itself [and] certainly does not prohibit all behavior an emp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT