Pressley v. City of Anniston & Daryl Abernathy
| Decision Date | 07 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 1:14-CV-1029-VEH |
| Parties | JENNIFER PRESSLEY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ANNISTON and DARYL ABERNATHY, in his individual capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
Plaintiff Jennifer Pressley ("Ms. Pressley") brings this job discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation lawsuit against Defendants City of Anniston (the "City") and Daryl Abernathy ("Mr. Abernathy"), her former supervisor. (Doc. 1). Her complaint contains a total of eleven counts-eight of which are federal claims and three of which arise under state law. (See generally id.).
Count I is a Title VII failure-to-hire on the basis of gender claim asserted against the City. (Doc. 1 at 9). Count II is an equal protection-based failure-to-hire on the basis of gender claim asserted against both the City and Mr. Abernathy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1 at 10). Count III is a Title VII sexual harassment claim asserted against the City. (Id. at 11). Count IV is an equal protection-based sexual harassment claim asserted against both the City and Mr. Abernathy pursuant to § 1983. (Id. at 14). Count V is a Title VII retaliatory harassment claim asserted against the City. (Id. at 16). Count VI is a Title VII retaliatory discharge claim asserted against the City. (Id. at 17). Count VII is a Title VII retaliatory failure-to-rehire claim asserted against the City. (Id. at 19). Count VIII is an equal protection-based retaliatory failure-to-rehire claim asserted against both the City and Mr. Abernathy pursuant to § 1983. (Id. at 21).
Count IX is a negligent training and supervision claim asserted against the City. (Doc. 1 at 23). Count X is an invasion of privacy claim asserted against Mr. Abernathy. (Id. at 24). Finally, Count XI is an outrage claim asserted against Mr. Abernathy. (Id. at 25).
The three pending motions are: (i) Mr. Abernathy's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 24) ("Mr. Abernathy's Motion") filed on January 14, 2016; (ii) the City's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment with attached evidence (Doc. 26) (the"City's Partial Motion") also filed on January 14, 2016; and (iii) Mr. Abernathy's Motion To Strike Portions of Declaration of Jennifer Pressley (Doc. 52) (the "Strike Motion") filed on March 25, 2016. Defendants have filed evidence and briefs in support of these motions. (Docs. 25, 27, 30-32).
Ms. Pressley opposed the City's Motion on March 3, 2016 (Docs. 37, 38), and filed a corrected brief on March 15, 2016. (Doc. 44). Ms. Pressley opposed Mr. Abernathy's Motion on March 15, 2016 (Doc. 40) and his Strike Motion on April 8, 2016. (Doc. 54). Finally, both Mr. Abernathy and the City filed reply briefs in support of their respective motions. (Docs. 51, 53). For the reasons explained below the City's Partial Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Mr. Abernathy's Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Finally, Mr. Abernathy's Strike Motion is TERMED as MOOT.
Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R . CIV. P. 56(a). All reasonable doubts about the facts and all justifiable inferences are resolved in favor of the nonmovant. See Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993). A dispute is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury couldreturn a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). "Once the moving party has properly supported its motion for summary judgment, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to 'come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" International Stamp Art, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, 456 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986)). Finally "[i]f the movant bears the burden of proof on an issue, because, as a defendant, it is asserting an affirmative defense, it must establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to any element of that defense." International Stamp, 456 F.3d at 1274 (citing Martin v. Alamo Community College Dist., 353 F.3d 409, 412 (5th Cir. 2003)).
A plaintiff in an employment discrimination case maintains the ultimate burden of proving that the adverse employment decision was made because of intentional discrimination. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143,120 S. Ct. 2097, 2106, 147 L. Ed. 2d 105 (2000) ; Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rahall Comms., 738 F.2d 1181, 1184 (11th Cir. 1984) .
The Supreme Court has established the basic allocation of burdens and order of proof in a disparate treatment case, see, e.g., McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973); Burdine, supra; Desert Palace v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 123 S. Ct. 2148, 56 L. Ed. 2d 84 (2003); that framework applies in cases in which such as this there is no direct evidence of discrimination.1 See Grigsby v. Reynolds Metals Co., 821 F.2d 590, 595 (11th Cir. 1987) ("The McDonnell Douglas-Burdine patterns of proof were designed to ease the evidentiary burdens on employment discrimin[a]tion plaintiffs, who rarely are fortunate enough to have access to direct evidence of intentional discrimination." (citing Thornbrough v. Columbus and Greenville R.R., 760 F.2d 633, 638 (5th Cir. 1985), abrogated onother grounds by St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 125 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1993)).
Under the McDonnell Douglas/Burdine circumstantial evidence scheme, a plaintiff first has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence a prima facie case of discrimination. The burden of production then shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employment decision. If the defendant does so, the plaintiff must either prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant are merely a pretext for discrimination or present sufficient evidence, of any type, for a reasonable jury to conclude that discrimination was a "motivating factor" for the employment action, even though the defendant's legitimate reason may also be true or have played some role in the decision. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802-05, 93 S. Ct. at 1824-26; Burdine, 450 U.S. at 252-54, 101 S. Ct. at 1093-94; Desert Palace, 539 U.S. at 101-02, 123 S. Ct. at 2155.
"All evidentiary decisions are reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard." See, e.g., General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141, 118 S. Ct. 512, 517, 139 L. Ed. 2d. 508 (1997). "An abuse of discretion can occur where the district court applies the wrong law, follows the wrong procedure, bases its decision on clearly erroneousfacts, or commits a clear error in judgment." United States v. Estelan, 156 F. App'x 185, 196 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257, 1266 (11th Cir. 2005)).
Moreover, as the Eleventh Circuit has made clear, not every incorrect evidentiary ruling constitutes reversible error:
Auto-Owners' second argument is that it is entitled to a new trial on the basis of what it describes as a number of erroneous evidentiary rulings by the district court. Evidentiary rulings are also reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Finch v. City of Vernon, 877 F.2d 1497, 1504 (11th Cir. 1989). Moreover, even if Auto-Owners can show that certain errors were committed, the errors must have affected "substantial rights" in order to provide the basis for a new trial. See FED. R. EVID. 103(a). "Error in the admission or exclusion of evidence is harmless if it does not affect the substantial rights of the parties." Perry, 734 F.2d at 1446. See also Allstate Insurance Co. v. James, 845 F.2d 315, 319 (11th Cir. 1988).
Haygood v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 995 F.2d 1512, 1515 (11th Cir. 1993). Therefore, even the existence of many evidentiary errors does not guarantee an appealing party relief from an adverse final judgment. Instead, such erroneous rulings by a district court must "affect the substantial rights of the parties" in order for reversible error to occur.
Mr. Abernathy has worked for the City since 1998 and, during the time period relevant to this lawsuit, served as the assistant street superintendent for the City's Public Works Department (the "Department"). (AF No. 1).3 Mr. Abernathy reportsdirectly to the public works director, Bob Dean ("Mr. Dean"), who, in turn, reports to the city manager, now Brian Johnson ("Mr. Johnson"), but who previously was Don Hoyt ("Mr. Hoyt"). (AF No. 2). Mr. Abernathy has four subordinates who report directly to him and who are first-level supervisors over the laborers in the Department: Danny Bussey ("Mr. Bussey"), John Duncan ("Mr. Duncan"), Tony Hill ("Mr. Hill"), and Joe McCarson ("Mr. McCarson"). (AF No. 3).
While laborers in the Department are generally assigned to one of the four supervisors, they can be shifted to another when necessary, according to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial