Pouncey v. Guilford Cnty.
| Decision Date | 28 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1:18CV1022 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | MONICA POUNCEY, Plaintiff, v. GUILFORD COUNTY, MARTY LAWING, in his official and personal capacities, HEMANT DESAI, in his official and personal capacities, and JEFFREY SOLOMON, in his official and personal capacities, Defendants. |
Presently before the court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Guilford County ("the County"), Marty Lawing ("Lawing"), Hemant Desai ("Desai"), and Jeffrey Solomon ("Solomon") (together "Defendants"). (Doc. 30.) Plaintiff Monica Pouncey ("Plaintiff" or "Pouncey") responded in opposition, (Doc. 32), and Defendants replied, (Doc. 34). This motion is now ripe for consideration.
Plaintiff, Monica Pouncey, is an African American woman formerly employed by Guilford County. ( 1 Defendants are Guilford County, as well as individual Defendants Lawing, County Manager of Guilford County; Desai, Guilford County Chief Information Officer; and Solomon, the Enterprise Technology Team Lead for Guilford County. (Complaint (Doc. 1) ¶¶ 4-7.) Pouncey started working for Guilford County as a software engineer in 2008, (Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. (Doc. 30), Deposition of Monica Lanae Pouncey ("Pouncey Dep.") (Doc. 30-32) at 5), working as an email administrator on the Enterprise Technology Team, (id. at 23).
Jeffrey Solomon became Pouncey's supervisor in 2014. (Id. at 6.) Pouncey attests that "the atmosphere that surrounded [Solomon] was not positive," as he "looked at his watch" when employees came in late and "did not greet you any time of theday unless he had something to ask of you." (Id. at 19.) Plaintiff claims that Defendant Solomon had this attitude toward her and "[o]ther African American people" but, when asked if he did the same thing to white employees, Pouncey said, "not that [she] saw." (Id. at 20.) Pouncey also got "half communication or no communication" and "drastically low" performance reviews with Solomon as her supervisor. (Id. at 19.) Moreover, Solomon did not bring up problems with Pouncey's work until it was time for her performance reviews, so she lacked "an opportunity to address those issues." (Id.) When Solomon presented her with performance reviews, he failed to provide evidence for why she was scored so poorly. (Id. at 24.)
Plaintiff alleges that two white employees, Teresa Wilson and Brett Pennington, "always were favorite in everything that [Solomon] wanted done." (Id. at 21.) Plaintiff claims that training requests by white employees were granted, while requests by African American employees were denied. (Id.) She argues, in a conclusory fashion, that she received fewer opportunities and training than other employees. However, the training log provided by Defendants shows Pouncey received more training than anyone else on the Enterprise Technology Team, having attended seven training sessions. (IS Department Training Log ("Training Log") (Doc. 30-23).) Three of the trainings onthe log occurred "prior to Solomon becoming [Pouncey's] supervisor." (Pouncey Aff. (Doc. 32-2) ¶ 27.) Taking this into account, Plaintiff received four trainings under Solomon - more than almost all of Solomon's direct reports, including Jeffrey Dietz (white), Brett Pennington (white), Jessica Starke (black), Wayne Streeter (black), and others not mentioned in Pouncey's affidavit. (Training Log (Doc. 30-23); see also Pouncey Aff. (Doc. 32-2) ¶¶ 8, 13.) Teresa Wilson was Solomon's only direct report - out of seven - who received more training under his supervision than Pouncey. (Training Log (Doc. 30-23).) Plaintiff does not offer any evidence to dispute these training logs, and this court therefore finds that Wilson and Plaintiff received more training than anyone else. Solomon never made any racial comments directed at Plaintiff, nor has he made any racial comments in her presence. (Pouncey Dep. (Doc. 30-32) at 23.) Pouncey concluded that Solomon "has a personal vendetta" against her. (Id. at 24.)
Pouncey also claims Hemant Desai treated her differently because of her race. She cited "previous issues that he has questioned or belittled" her. (Id. at 18.) Desai "berated" her on a conference call in either 2015 or 2016 about a project when Pouncey "was asked a question that [she] didn't have the answer to at that moment" - Desai told her that she "wasn't prepared."(Id. at 17-18.) This did not occur on any other conference calls. (Id. at 18.) However, Pouncey claims Desai "questioned [her] more so than any other employee" and "constantly told [her she] wasn't knowledgeable." (Id. at 18-19.) Pouncey claims that Desai had "something personal" against her and he was "very sarcastic" and "condescending" towards her. (Id. at 19.) Plaintiff states that Desai has never made any racially derogatory statements or comments to her. (Id. at 18.)
In 2016, Pouncey applied to a senior software engineer position in her department. (Id. at 21.) The opening was initially removed before the application deadline and before Pouncey had applied. (Id.) Soon after the opening was removed, the interview panel - which included Desai, Solomon, and Bridgett Lindsey ("Lindsey"), announced they had given the job to one of Pouncey's white teammates. (Id.)
On June 29, 2017, another senior software engineer position opened. (Id. at 16.) Pouncey applied the day the posting was sent out. (Id.) The only two applicants were Pouncey and Brett Pennington ("Pennington"), who is white. (Id.) Pouncey was terminated two months before the position was filled. (Affidavit of Graham Rothrock ("Rothrock Aff.") (Doc. 30-29) ¶ 13.)
One of the central issues in this case is Plaintiff's alleged unauthorized access to certain email accounts. The factsare relatively undisputed. On September 21, 2017, Solomon and another employee were investigating an instance of a different employee's unauthorized access to an email account. Upon investigation, they discovered Plaintiff had unauthorized access to the accounts of two of her co-workers. (Defs.' Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. ( ) (Doc. 31) at 5.) After Plaintiff mistakenly accused a co-worker of having access to her account, (id. at 6), Solomon conducted "an audit of Plaintiff's access permissions." (Id. at 7.) At this point, Solomon discovered that Plaintiff also had unauthorized access to the accounts of Desai and Graham Rothrock, "among others." (Id.) Pouncey acknowledges granting herself permissions to access Desai's email account the afternoon of June 29 - the day the senior software engineer position was posted - and then removing that access an hour later. (Pouncey Dep. (Doc. 30-32) at 16.) Pouncey also acknowledges that she gave herself permissions to access the email inbox of Rothrock, who works in recruitment within the department, at 9:53 p.m. on July 3 - outside of work hours. (Id.) Pouncey claims this access was for the Barracuda project, though she used her personal ID, rather than her email testing ID, to access the emails. (Id.)
On September 28, 2017, Pouncey was brought into a meeting with June Harley, Ray Willis, and Desai to discuss her suspectedviolation of county email policies. (Id. at 13, 17.) She was asked about her access to Rothrock's account after applying for the senior position. (Id. at 13.) Pouncey was also asked about access at various times to the inboxes of Lisa Canter, Teresa Wilson, and Desai himself. (Id. at 13-14.) Plaintiff claimed she accessed the accounts as part of her work on the MDM and Barracuda projects. (Id. at 13.) Desai told Pouncey that the IT department may only access mailboxes upon formal requests when appropriate. (Id. at 14.) Plaintiff claimed to have permission from Lisa Canter and Teresa Wilson but agrees she did not have permission to access the mailboxes of Rothrock or Desai. (Id.) At the meeting, Pouncey was told that "gaining access to employee email accounts without the proper authorization" and "for personal gain" was "unacceptable personal conduct." (Id. at 17.) Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave without pay, "pending a review/investigation into recent events." (Id. at 30.) Plaintiff claims she had no reason to believe June Harley treated her differently because of her race and is unsure whether Willis treated her differently because of race. (Id. at 17.)
Plaintiff was terminated effective October 18, 2017. (Id. at 31.) On October 26, 2017, Pouncey appealed her termination. (See Doc. 30-12.) The termination and underlying allegationswere investigated by Human Resources employees including Clarence Grier and Marty Lawing, who upheld the termination on multiple grounds. (Doc. 30-13.) Pouncey and Lawing have never met, (Pouncey Dep. (Doc. 30-32) at 8), and Grier is himself African American. (Affidavit of Clarence Grier ("Grier Aff.") Doc. 30-27 ¶ 2.)
After she was terminated, Defendants discovered Pouncey had "unrestricted and full access" to the email accounts of individuals in "high level positions," including members of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners, the Guilford County Sheriff, the County Manager, the Guilford County Attorney, and the Director of Social Services. (Affidavit of Jeffrey Solomon ("Solomon Aff.") (Doc. 30-26) ¶ 38.) Contrary to what Plaintiff had previously claimed, (Doc. 30-2), she accessed these accounts via her personal username as well as her typical email test username. (Solomon Aff. (Doc. 30-26) ¶ 38.) Pouncey was contacted by co-workers who overheard Solomon claiming he was going to have Pouncey arrested. (Pouncey Dep. (Doc. 30-32) at 22.) Solomon had allegedly been gloating about Pouncey's termination. (Id.) A police investigation was conducted into Pouncey's email access, but no criminal charges were brought. (Doc....
To continue reading
Request your trial