Prado v. Mazeika
Decision Date | 21 March 2019 |
Docket Number | Case No. 3:16-cv-320 |
Parties | GLENDA JACQUELINE PRADO, Plaintiff, v. PAT MAZEIKA, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT (DOC. #70); SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. #67)
Plaintiff, Glenda Jacqueline Prado ("Prado"), has filed suit alleging several causes of action due to her termination as a probationary caseworker at the Greene County Department of Job & Family Services where she was employed for six months. Pursuant to this Court's Decision and Entry, filed September 21, 2018, Doc. #57, the only claims remaining are as alleged in the First, Second and Third Causes of Action (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended) and Ninth Cause of Action (Ohio Rev. Code § 4112, et seq.). Prado alleges in her Amended Complaint that because of her race and ethnicity, she was subjected to disparate treatment, harassment and retaliation in her employment by Defendants. Doc. #34, PAGEID#220.1 This matter is before the Court pursuant to a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the sole remaining Defendants, the Greene County, Ohio, Board of County Commissioners and Greene County ("Defendants"), Doc. #67. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the four remaining causes of action. Prado has filed a response, Doc. #68, and Defendants have filed a reply, Doc. #69.
A related motion, Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Affidavit, Doc. #70, is also at issue. Prado has filed a response, Doc. #71, to this motion and Defendants have filed a reply, Doc. #74.2 Because Defendants' Motionto Strike, Doc. #70, will affect the record to be considered by the Court in ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants' objections will be decided prior to the summary judgment motion. Brainard v. Am. Skandia Life Assurance Corp., 432 F.3d 655, 667 (6th Cir.2005) () Accordingly, this Decision and Entry, as it relates to the motion for summary judgment, does not include any information that the Court has determined inadmissible pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 56(c)(2) and (4).
On October 6, 2014, Prado was hired as a Caseworker I, probationary employee, for the Children Services Division of the Greene County, Ohio, Department of Job and Family Services. Lana Penney ("Penney"), the Program Resources Manager, was responsible for Prado's interview and recommended that Prado be hired for the position. Doc. #67-1, PAGEID#815; Doc. #66, PAGEID#742.3 The job description, signed by Prado, set forth "Competency-Based, Essential Functions" of the Caseworker I position and listed the following requirements:
(1)writing strengths-based, family-centered plans for each family into the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS); (2) maintain accurate and comprehensive case management documentation and reports within required timeframes ; (3) write, review, compile, and maintain accurate, up-to-date case management records; (4) actively participate in internal agency meetings, including committee meetings, agency work teams, etc.; (5) prepare case testimony and documentation for court hearings; and (6) research and write a thorough Child Study Inventory for each child in the permanent custody of Greene County Children's Services.
Doc. #67-1, PAGEID#815. Additionally, Prado's position also required that she be able to "(1) carry out written and/or oral instructions; (2) work independently and/or exercise independent judgment; (3) prepare meaningful, concise, and accurate reports; (4) manage work timely and consistently; and (5) write effectively." Id., PAGEID##815-816. Prado, like the three other new caseworkers hired at the same time, had the same training schedule which included shadowing opportunities and core training. Id., PAGEID#816. The new caseworkers met daily to review orientation topics and would prepare for assessments of clients. Id.
Heather Jamison ("Jamison") was Prado's initial supervisor for her first three months and also evaluated and signed the "mid-probationary" evaluation dated January 6, 2015, along with the Department Director, Beth Rubin ("Rubin"). Doc. #67-2, PAGEID#843. Comments on this initial three-month evaluation indicated that all of Prado's work performance was rated "as expected," although in one category, Customer Service, Prado received a rating of "more than expected" and, in another category, Communication, Prado received a rating of"less than expected." Id., PAGEID##840-844. In general, after three months, Prado was said to "meet overall expectations." Id. at PAGEID#842
Prado alleges, however, that during the first three months and throughout the entire six-months of her probationary employment, she was harassed by co-workers and a supervisor, Beth Keller ("Keller"). The harassment from Keller included making fun of Prado's accent on a daily basis, as well as standing on a chair in an adjoining cubicle and looking at Prado, laughing and imitating her accent. Doc. #68-1, PAGEID##930 and 932. Prado also stated that Keller encouraged one of Prado's co-workers to deliberately "pass gas at me" at screening sessions. Id. at PAGEID#934. In addition to the actions of Keller, co-workers at meetings would also "trill their R's as Spanish [speaking] people do" to "make fun" of Prado, imitate her walk, stand on chairs and make "grunting and pig noises" when Prado was on the phone with clients, and intentionally give Prado wrong directions to clients' homes. Id., PAGEID##930, 932 and 934. The harassment also included derogatory remarks directed at Prado concerning her clothing, jewelry and on one occasion her office supplies were taken from her desk. Prado testified that she purchased ear plugs in order to lessen the noise and would come in early and leave later. Prado stated that she told her supervisor, Jamison, that this was due to the harassment. Doc. #68-1, PAGEID#934. Prado, crying, complained to her then supervisor, Jamison, concerning the treatment and harassment she was receiving from co-workers. Id. at PAGEID#932. This occurred between the end of November and early December 2014. Doc. #66, PAGEIE#634.
Jamison, in an unsigned and unauthenticated statement, dated May 27, 2015, stated that Prado was one of four new hires. Jamison "...noted concern that assessment caseworkers did not demonstrate the same willingness to take [Prado] out in the field" as they did with the other new hires, and that during the week of November 17, 2014, Prado approached her due to "concern for the way she was being treated by those that sat near her." Jamison stated that Prado "moved cubicles to sit in the orientation cubicles," which were apparently closer to Jamison, and she continued to work assessment cases with Prado. Doc #67-2, PAGEID##898-99; Doc. 68-1, PAGEID#932. While in Jamison's unit, Prado worked with Jamison to improve Prado's writing skills. Doc. #67-2, PAGEID#898.
Additionally, Prado testified in her deposition that after she complained to Jamison, Jamison then went to Josh Coomer, the Family and Children Services Program Manager/Adoption Supervisor, Doc. #66, PAGEID#634.
Doc. #66, PAGEID#630. The paperwork was given to others as well. Doc. #66, PAGEID# 633.
In her affidavit, Beth Rubin makes one reference to action taken following Prado's complaint that was made, per Jamison, during the week of November 17, 2014.
Doc. 67-1, PAGEID##817-18.
Rubin's Affidavit refers to an "Exhibit F" which indicates that on January 15, 2015, Chad King, a Children Services Manager, addressed Prado's interactions with the other employees with the supervisors of the Children's Services Division and "reminded them that it is important to treat everyone with respect." Doc. 67-1, PAGEID#817. Prado testified that she never spoke to either Josh Coomer or Chad King about any further issues she experienced. According to Rubin's Affidavit, "management believed that the situation had been resolved." Doc. #66, PAGEID#634; Doc. #67-1, PAGEID#818.
Following the initial three-month evaluation, Prado was moved, during the week of January 19, 2015, to fill a vacancy in the Outgoing department. Prado's supervisor in Outgoing was Pat Mazeika ("Mazeika"). Jamison, however, continued to work with Prado on SACWIS entry as part of her evaluation goals,and met weekly with Prado to review tools to aid in entry of SACWIS required documents. Doc.#67-2, PAGEID##898-99. Mazeika likewise stated in an affidavit that she "provided...
To continue reading
Request your trial