Mills v. City of Norfolk
| Decision Date | 07 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 2:21-cv-185 |
| Parties | RODNEY MILLS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NORFOLK, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Before the Court is Defendants', City of Norfolk (“Norfolk” or “the City”) and Jeffrey Wise (“Chief Wise” or “Wise”) (“Defendants” collectively), Motions for Summary Judgment and Memorandums in Support pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, as well as Defendants' Motions to Sever and for Misjoinder (“Motions to Sever”) and Motions to Dismiss. The Court has reviewed the motions accompanying memorandums, and exhibits. The Court has also reviewed Rodney Mills' (“Plaintiff') responses to the motions and Defendants' replies. After reviewing the parties' filings, the Court finds that a hearing is not necessary, and these matters are ripe for judicial determination. The Court FINDS that there is no dispute as to any material fact, and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the City of Norfolk and Jeffrey Wise's Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED and their Motions to Sever and Motions to Dismiss are DISMISSED as moot.
This action originated in the Eastern District of Virginia on April 12, 2021. Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff filed the instant Amended Complaint on August 30, 2021, alleging the following:
Norfolk filed its Motion to Dismiss with accompanying memoranda on September 13, 2021. Norfolk Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 25; Norfolk Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 26. Plaintiff responded to Norfolk's Motion to Dismiss on September 27, 2021. Pl.'s Mem. Opp. Norfolk Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 28. Norfolk replied on October 4, 2021. Norfolk Mot. Dismiss Reply, ECF No. 30. Wise filed his Motion to Dismiss with accompanying memoranda on October 8,2021. Wise Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 31; Wise Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 32. Plaintiff responded to Wise's Motion to Dismiss on October 22,2021. Pl.'s Mem. Opp. Wise Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 42. Wise replied on October 28,2021. Wise Mot. Dismiss Reply, ECF No. 44.
Defendants filed Motions to Sever with accompanying memoranda on October 8, 2021. Norfolk Mot. Sever, ECF No. 36; Norfolk Mem. Supp. Mot. Sever, ECF No. 37; Wise Mot. Sever, ECF No. 34; Wise Mem. Supp. Mot. Sever, ECF No. 35. Plaintiff responded to the Motions to Sever on October 22, 2021. Pl.'s Mem. Opp. Norfolk-Wise Mot. Sever, ECF No. 41. Defendants filed their rebuttals on October 28, 2021. Defs.' Mot. Sever Rebuttal, ECF No. 43.
Defendants filed the instant Motions for Summary Judgment on October 8,2021. Norfolk Summ. J. Mot., ECF No. 45; Norfolk Mem. Supp. Summ. J. Mot. (“Norfolk Mem. Supp.”), ECF No. 46; Wise Summ. J. Mot., ECF No. 47; Wise Mem. Supp. Summ. J. Mot. (“Wise Mem. Supp.”), ECF No. 48. Plaintiff responded on December 22, 2021. Pl.'s Mem. Opp. Norfolk Summ. J. Mot. (“Pl.'s Mem. Opp. Norfolk”), ECF No. 49; Pl.'s Mem. Opp. Wise Summ. J. Mot. (“Pl.'s Mem. Opp. Wise”), ECF No. 50. Defendants replied on December 28, 2021. Norfolk Reply, ECF No. 54; Wise Reply, ECF No. 52.
In 1996, Plaintiff was hired as a Recruit with the City of Norfolk's Fire and Paramedical Services, which later became Norfolk Fire and Rescue (“NFR”). Pl.'s Oct. 25,2021 Dep. Tr. (“Pl. Dep. Tr.”), ECF No. 86, 16:20-17:13, 70:20-23. After serving as a Recruit for one year, Plaintiff was promoted to Firefighter. Id. at 16:20-17:13. Plaintiffs first significant promotion after becoming a Firefighter was obtaining a paramedic certification in or around 1997, which a white Battalion Chief, Chief Fentress, encouraged him to pursue. Id. at 35:6-35:8, 36:1-36:22.[1]
In 2009, Plaintiff pled guilty to filing a false police report and misdemeanor hit-and-run with a train. Id. at 18:23-19:22, 21:3-22:23, 23:20-24, Ex. 1 (“Plea Acceptance Sheet”), Ex. 2 (“Grand Jury Indictment”). The police report was false because Plaintiff told police that someone had stolen his car prior to the accident with the train; however, Plaintiff was actually the person driving his car at the time of the accident. Id. at 24:14-25:19. Following the hit-and-run and criminal charges, NFR terminated Plaintiff, but he was ultimately re-instated to his position by a grievance panel after serving a six-month suspension without pay. Id. at 26:19-27:1,28:2-28:25, 30:2-31:12, Ex. 3 (“City of Norfolk Grievance Reply Form”), Ex. 4 (“Termination Recommendation Documentation”).
On November 22, 2013, Wise wrote an intra-departmental memorandum to the Norfolk City Manager, Marcus Jones, recommending Plaintiff for promotion to Fire Lieutenant. Jeffrey Wise Affidavit (“Wise Aff.”) ¶ 22, Ex. 3. Plaintiff was promoted to Fire Lieutenant in December of 2013 on his second attempt to obtain that rank. Pl. Dep. Tr. at 39:14-40:13,44:21-45:8. Plaintiff did not score well on his first attempt at promotion to Fire Lieutenant due to a divorce he was going through at the time, and his final score was not favorable. Id. at 44:21-45:1-6. Not every employee who participates in the promotional process is ultimately promoted. Id. at 53:14-17.
Plaintiff does not have personal knowledge of how many other people applied or were promoted to Fire Lieutenant in 2013. Id. at 52:12-18, 53:4-10. He does not know how many people, or of what races, participated in promotional processes in 2010 or before. Id. at 77:9-25. He does not know whether the promotional process had the same components (assessment, test, and interview) in 2010 and before. Id. at 78:1-6.
For one year, from 2016 until his promotion to Fire Captain in 2017, Plaintiff served in the Administration Department working on recruiting and public affairs. Pl. Dep. Tr. at 64:4-13, 69:15-70:6. He did not have access to other employees' personnel files during this time. Id. at 70:7-19. He also did not have access to NEOGOV, the system that stores NFR job applications. Id. at 70:12-19.
On May 30, 2017, Wise wrote an intra-departmental memorandum to the Norfolk City Manager, Douglas L. Smith, recommending Plaintiff (Black male), William Raney (white male), Michael Murphy (white male), Jarrod Sergi (white male) and Carrie Jones (white female) for promotion to the position of Fire Captain. Wise Aff. ¶ 23, Ex. 4. Per the May 30, 2017 recommendation, Wise promoted Plaintiff, Raney, Murphy, Sergi, and Jones to the rank of Fire Captain on June 13, 2017, with Plaintiff being promoted to the highest salary among them. Pl. Dep. Tr. at 54:20-55:2; Wise Aff. ¶¶ 24-25, Ex. 4.
Plaintiff does not know how many people participated in the 2016 promotion process, which was the process through which Plaintiff earned his 2017 promotion to Fire Captain. Pl. Dep. Tr. at 55:3-6,76:21-25. Plaintiff does not know if everyone who applied for the 2016 promotional process took the appliable test on the same day. Id. Furthermore, Plaintiff does not know how he ranked on the candidate list based on his test and assessment score. Id. at 61:6-17. A total of five people were promoted to Fire Captain with Plaintiff in June 2017. Id. at 55:7-12, 61:18-22. Plaintiff does not have personal knowledge of how many other people were promoted to Fire Captain from the 2016 promotion process. Id. at 61:23-62:9.
When Plaintiff was promoted in 2013, Chief Wise commented to the Norfolk City Manager without Plaintiffs knowledge that Plaintiff “demonstrated growth and maturity,” “[has] always been an excellent performer on the street,” would be “an inspiration to others,” and would “support [Wise's] efforts to move the Department forward through professionalism and respect towards all.” Id. at 207:8-208:15, Ex. 17; Wise Aff. ¶ 22, Ex. 3. When Plaintiff was promoted in 2017, Wise commented to the Norfolk City Manager without Plaintiffs knowledge that Plaintiffs “best captain quality is his determination to achieve his goals,” which “resonates to his subordinates.” Pl. Dep. Tr. at 208:16-209:7; Wise Aff. ¶ 23, Ex. 4. Wise also stated in his recommendation that Plaintiff “has a long track record of his willingness to assist the members of NFR and the citizens of Norfolk through internal outreach to recruits and external outreach to the community.” Id.
Plaintiff does not know how many Black Americans have worked for NFR since 1996 and has not seen the personnel files for other Black NFR employees. Pl. Dep. Tr. at 70:24-71:12. Since starting with NFR, other than employees who took the same tests at the same time as he did, Plaintiff does not have personal knowledge of who applied for which positions in NFR. Id. at 71:13-72:17. Plaintiff is also not familiar with how promotions or other events are documented in an employee's personnel file by NFR's Department of Human Resources. Id. at 129:1-15.
A list of people eligible for promotion is created during the promotional process based on a combined score from an exam an assessment, and longevity points calculated by the Civil Service Commission. Id. at 55:13-56:5;...
To continue reading
Request your trial