Payne v. DURACELL USA

• Decision Date: 27 July 1990
• Docket Number: No. C-89-393-S.,C-89-393-S.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
• Parties: Robert F. PAYNE, Plaintiff, v. DURACELL U.S.A., Defendant.

745 F. Supp. 341

Robert F. PAYNE, Plaintiff,
v.
DURACELL U.S.A., Defendant.

No. C-89-393-S.

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina, Salisbury Division.

July 27, 1990.

745 F. Supp. 342

Robert F. Payne, Lexington, N.C., pro se.

Louis C. Allen, III, Greensboro, N.C., Stephen X. Munger and Collette R. Jones, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TILLEY, District Judge.

Defendant requests summary judgment and sanctions in this job discrimination suit. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, 11. Plaintiff, who is acting pro se, was notified in a letter by the Clerk of this Court on March 5, 1990, that a motion for summary judgment had been filed and that a "failure to respond or file affidavits or evidence in rebuttal within the allowed time may cause the court to conclude that the Defendant's contentions are undisputed. As a result, the court may dismiss the suit or render judgment against you." Plaintiff, nevertheless, did not respond to the motion.

FACTS

Plaintiff Robert F. Payne brought this action against Defendant Duracell U.S.A., alleging that in 1987 Duracell demoted him and twice failed to promote him as a result of race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII).

Plaintiff alleges three claims of racial discrimination: 1) he was not promoted to a Tool Cleaner/Polisher job in July 1987, 2) he was not promoted to a Maintenance Mechanic II job in September 1987, and 3) he was demoted when he was transferred from Press Operator to House Services in June 1987.

DISCUSSION

Although a local rule provides that Plaintiff's failure to respond to this motion for summary judgment may result in the motion being considered as uncontested, the court may not grant the motion unless it has merit. Frasco v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 532 F.Supp. 1020 (M.D.N.C.1982). To prevail, the Defendant must establish facts which show, when taken in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In addition to the pleadings, Defendant has submitted affidavits and Plaintiff's deposition.

DEMOTION CLAIM

Before filing a Title VII suit in court, a Plaintiff is required to exhaust administrative remedies by timely filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Dixon v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.,...