Potts v. City of Bessemer

Decision Date25 August 2017
Docket NumberCase No.: 2:15-CV-1928-VEH
PartiesLISA POTTS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BESSEMER, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This employment discrimination civil action is filed by the Plaintiff, Lisa Potts, against the Defendant, the City of Bessemer, Alabama ("the City"). The Plaintiff alleges that the City discriminated against her, based on her gender, when it denied her a promotion. The Complaint alleges one count of "Gender Discrimination" in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e through 2000e-17 ("Title VII").

This case comes before the Court on the City's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 21), and the City's "Motion to Strike Portions of [the] Plaintiff's Evidentiary Materials" (doc. 32). For the reasons stated herein, the Motion for Summary Judgment will be DENIED. Because resolving the Motion To Strike is not necessary in order to rule on the Motion for Summary Judgment1, the Motion To Strike will be DENIED as moot.

I. STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) ("[S]ummary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The party requesting summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the pleadings or filings that it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party has met its burden, Rule 56(e) requires the non-moving party to go beyond the pleadings in answering the movant. Id. at 324. By its own affidavits - or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file - it must designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id.

The underlying substantive law identifies which facts are material and which are irrelevant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). All reasonable doubts about the facts and all justifiable inferences are resolved in favor of the non-movant. Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1023. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. If the evidence presented by the non-movant to rebut the moving party's evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may still be granted. Id. at 249.

How the movant may satisfy its initial evidentiary burden depends on whether that party bears the burden of proof on the given legal issues at trial. Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993). If the movant bears the burden of proof on the given issue or issues at trial, then it can only meet its burden on summary judgment by presenting affirmative evidence showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact - that is, facts that would entitle it to a directed verdict if not controverted at trial. Id. (citation omitted). Once the moving party makes such an affirmative showing, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to produce "significant, probative evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact." Id. (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

For issues on which the movant does not bear the burden of proof at trial, it can satisfy its initial burden on summary judgment in either of two ways. Id. at 1115-16. First, the movant may simply show that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-movant's case on the particular issue at hand. Id. at 1116. In such an instance, the non-movant must rebut by either (1) showing that the record in fact contains supporting evidence sufficient to withstand a directed verdict motion, or (2) proffering evidence sufficient to withstand a directed verdict motion at trial based on the alleged evidentiary deficiency. Id. at 1116-17. When responding, the non-movant may no longer rest on mere allegations; instead, it must set forth evidence of specific facts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 358 (1996). The second method a movant in this position may use to discharge its burden is to provide affirmative evidence demonstrating that the non-moving party will be unable to prove its case at trial. Fitzpatrick, 2 F.3d at 1116. When this occurs, the non-movant must rebut by offering evidence sufficient to withstand a directed verdict at trial on the material fact sought to be negated. Id.

II. FACTS2
A. The Organization of the Public Works Department of the City of Bessemer

Because the Plaintiff claims that she was denied a promotion into the position of "Public Works Supervisor" in the City of Bessemer's Public Works Department, an examination of the organization of that department is appropriate.

At all times relevant to this case, Bill McLaughlin was the Director of the City of Bessemer Public Works Department. The Assistant Director who reported to him was Lawrence Hatter. The Public Works Department has several "Public Works Supervisors" who report to the Assistant Director. Each Public Works Supervisor has responsibility over a specific sub-department3 within the Public Works Department, including: Construction; Grass and Clean-up; and Garbage and Trash (which also includes recycling and animal control).4 Within each sub-department there are Labor Supervisors, who report to the Public Works Supervisor over that sub-department.5 The Labor Supervisors supervise the "Laborers" in each sub-department. It is undisputed that the City's mayor, Kenneth Gulley, has the authority to make all hiring decisions, including the authority to fill the position at issue.

B. The Position at Issue

A Public Works Supervisor position became available in the spring of 2015, after the City terminated the Public Works Supervisor over the Construction sub-department. (Doc. 23-1 at 12(41)). The job posting for the position describes the position as: "Public Work Supervisor (Construction)" and "Public Works Supervisor (Construction or Sanitation)." (Doc. 29-5 at 2-3).6 It describes the work as involving "planning, assigning, supervising and inspecting the work of several crews engaged in construction, repair and maintenance of multiple public works projects such as highway, street, or sidewalk/driveway construction projects," and "planning, assigning, supervising, evaluating and inspecting the work of several crews engaged in sanitation activities such as refuse collection and disposal, brush and trash pick up and disposal street sweeping and other activities through lower level supervisors." (Doc. 29-5 at 2).

The City is subject to the same hiring rules as the Personnel Board of Jefferson County ("PBJC"). Accordingly, because the position of Public Works Supervisor is a "classified" position, before filling the position the City was required to, and did, obtain a list of eligible applicants certified by the PBJC. The list was sent to McLaughlin and Hatter to determine which candidates to interview. They decided to interview Potts and Ronald Strother, both of whom were already employed by the Public Works Department and were the only persons from within the department to be certified.7

C. The Candidates
1. Strother8

Strother was initially hired at the City as a temporary laborer on November 30, 1994, and then hired as a full time laborer on March 7, 1995. As a laborer, Strother worked in several areas, including within the construction department in the chert pit, in the landfill, laying pipe, and fixing headwalls.

From laborer, Strother was promoted to Truck Driver and then to Heavy Equipment Operator ("HEO"). Strother worked as an HEO operating a "knuckle boom" (or brush truck) until he was promoted to Labor Supervisor effective October 27, 2001. For his first several years as a Labor Supervisor, Strother was responsible for overseeing a grass cutting/right of way maintenance crew. Over time, however, Strother also took on responsibility for overseeing numerous other types of crews within the Department. Strother has supervised: garbage service; litter route pick-up; community service (litter pick-up); and a catch basin, storm water BMP, and lid crew. (Doc. 23-9 at 4(10), 15(53), 15(55), 15(56); doc. 23-10). In addition to supervising each of those crews as a Labor Supervisor, Strother also has supervised: street sweeper/night crews (doc. 23-9 at 4(10)); stump grinder crews (doc. 23-9 at 15(54)); animal control (doc. 23-9 at 15(55-56)); training for the Commercial Driver's License ("CDL") exam (doc. 23-9 at 15(55)); and herbicide/pesticide (doc. 23-9 at 4(11)).

At the time of the promotion decision at issue in this case, Strother had only received two written warnings over the span of his entire employment with the City and had never been suspended.

2. Potts

Potts began working for the City as a laborer in 1999. She was then promoted to Truck Driver in 2001. In 2009, the City promoted Potts from Truck Driver to Labor Supervisor. At that time, Hatter was a Public Works Supervisor, who supervised Potts and recommended Potts for the promotion to Labor Supervisor. Prior to the time of the Public Works Supervisor promotion decision at issue, Potts almost exclusively had only supervised a cutting crew (performing right of way maintenance) as a Labor Supervisor. (See doc. 1 at 3, ¶9; doc. 1 at 4 ¶19). In addition, as a Labor Supervisor Potts also...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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