Quezada v. City of Providence
| Decision Date | 29 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. 18-611 WES |
| Parties | ANA QUEZADA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island |
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 18, filed by the City of Providence ("Defendant" or "City"). In the alternative, Defendant moves for partial summary judgment as to Plaintiff's claim of damages for emotional distress. For the reasons explained below, Defendant's Motion is DENIED in part, and GRANTED in part.
During the events at issue, Plaintiff was employed as a housing inspector in the City's Department of Inspection and Standards ("the Department"). Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ("SUF") ¶ 1, ECF No. 19. Plaintiff and her coworkers were members of the Laborer's International Union of North America, Local 1033, and Plaintiff was a union steward. Id. at ¶¶ 3-4. She also served as a state senator during this period. Id. at ¶ 2.
On June 8, 2017, Plaintiff initiated a conversation with Department Director Jeffrey Lykins in an open office setting regarding concerns she had about recent hiring and promotion decisions. SUF ¶¶ 5, 23-36. During this conversation, Plaintiff questioned Mr. Lykins as to whether the Department did not promote another city employee, Rodis Rodriguez, who was employed at the Department as an Electrical Inspector II, because of his ethnicity. See id. at ¶¶ 22, 34-35; Quezada Dep. 20:20-21:7, ECF No. 25-1. Mr. Rodriguez was present for the conversation between Plaintiff and Mr. Lykins. Quezada Dep. 27:23-28:2. Mr. Lykins justified the delay in choosing a candidate by stating that the Department was instituting a new testing requirement; Plaintiff asserted that were Mr. Rodriguez "a white electrical inspector," the Department would not have imposed a testing requirement. SUF ¶¶ 34-35. During the conversation, Plaintiff also asserted that the Department had discriminated against an African-American apprentice inspector, treating him less favorably than a white counterpart. Id. at ¶ 36.
There is conflicting evidence regarding other aspects of the conversation. At his deposition, Mr. Lykins stated that Plaintiff loudly called him a racist, and that people across the office could hear the conversation. Lykins Dep. 23:7-24:23, ECF No. 25-4.Plaintiff disputes this account, pointing to her testimony that she stated that Mr. Lykins engaged in discriminatory actions, not that he was a racist. Pl.'s Statement of Disputed Facts ¶ 36, ECF No. 25. Additionally, she notes that there is no evidence that other employees were able to hear what was said during the encounter. See id. at ¶ 37 (citations omitted).
The City subsequently held a disciplinary hearing and suspended Plaintiff for five days. SUF ¶¶ 43, 49. While Sybil Bailey, as Human Resources Director, was the ultimate decision maker regarding discipline, she and Mr. Lykins discussed which disciplinary measures should be taken. Id. at ¶¶ 44, 48. In deciding to impose the suspension, Ms. Bailey represented that she took into account a previous warning Plaintiff had received for "unprofessional and inappropriate behavior" after a contentious conversation with a colleague. Id. at ¶ 15, 50, 51. News of Plaintiff's suspension was reported in the local press. Id. at ¶ 52.
Plaintiff claims that the City violated Title VII and the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act by retaliating against her for opposing discrimination in the workplace. Compl. ¶¶ 18-25, ECF No. 1-1. She seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff asserts that her suspension was "widely known by people inside and outside of the City government" due to the press coverage of hersuspension, and that as a result of the suspension, Plaintiff "lost wages, suffered embarrassment and humiliation, and her reputation has been harmed." Id. at ¶¶ 14, 16.
Defendant argues in its Motion that it is entitled "to summary judgement because the suspension arose not out of the content of Ms. Quezada's complaints, but the time, place and manner in which she chose to express them." Mot. for Summary J. 1. Alternatively, Defendant seeks partial summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim for damages arising from the publication of her suspension, arguing that Plaintiff "cannot point to any admissible evidence" demonstrating that Defendant leaked news of her suspension to the media. Id.
Summary judgment is proper if the movant demonstrates that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); National Amusements, Inc. v. Town of Dedham, 43 F.3d 731, 735 (1st Cir. 1995) ( .
In determining whether summary judgment is proper, the Court "view[s] the record in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, accepting all reasonable inferences favoring that party." Contl. Cas. Co. v. Canadian Universal Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 370, 373 (1st Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). At this stage, the Court is not tasked with "weigh[ing] the evidence but [rather] determin[ing] whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. (quotation and citation omitted).
Title VII prohibits "discriminat[ion] against any . . . employee[] . . . [because she] has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Employers are further prohibited from discriminating against employees because of their membership in certain protected classes, such as race. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1981. A claim of retaliation "in contravention of Title VII prompts a three-step analysis[,]" known as the McDonnell Douglas factors. Jennings v. Tinley Park Cmty. Consol. School Dist. No. 146, 864 F.2d 1368, 1371 (7th Cir. 1988) (citing Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-53 (1981); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973)).
Plaintiff first "has the burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination based upon opposition to an unlawful employmentpractice." Id. (citation omitted). To do so, she must show that she was "engaged in statutorily protected expression, viz., opposition to a seemingly unlawful employment practice[,]" that "she suffered an adverse employment action[,]" and that "there was a causal connection between the statutorily protected expression and the adverse employment action." Id. at 1371-72 (citations omitted); see also id. at 1372 . If "the plaintiff is able to establish a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate some legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action." Id. at 1372 (quotations and citations omitted). If an employee's "conduct is unreasonable, [but] borne out of legitimate protest," the disciplinary action "does not violate Title VII." Id. (citations omitted). If the defendant meets that burden, "the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that the defendant's articulated reason was truly pretextual for the defendant's actual discriminatory motive." Id. (citations omitted).
Plaintiff meets the first step of this test, because she "communicate[d] to her employer a belief that the employer ha[d] engaged in . . . a form of employment discrimination," thus constituting her "opposition to the activity." Crawford v. Metro.Govt. of Nashville and Davidson Cty., Tenn., 555 U.S. 271, 276 (2009) (citations and emphasis omitted). After speaking to her employer, she was disciplined and then suspended shortly after, demonstrating a causal connection between her activity and the adverse employment action. See SUF ¶ 51.
Defendant does not dispute this first step, but instead focuses on the second and third steps. Defendant argues that the City did not retaliate against Plaintiff because she engaged in protected activity, but rather because she expressed her opposition in a time, place, and manner that were unreasonable. See Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 16, ECF No. 18-1; see also Def.'s Reply to Pl.'s Opp'n 7-8, ECF No. 26; Jennings, 864 F.2d at 1372. Defendant thus argues, by implication, that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the City's articulated reason is pretextual.
Specifically, Defendant states that Plaintiff's choice to "dress down" her supervisor "during the workday," "in a communal workspace before an audience of her co-workers and Mr. Lykins' subordinates [that was] open to the public," was "patently unreasonable." Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 21. Defendant notes that she could have instead "met with Lykins in a private setting[,] filed a grievance[,] gone to Human Resources[,]" or accessed other resources to express her complaints, such as the City's Equal Employment Opportunity Officer. Id. at 22. All of theseapproaches would have been well known to the Plaintiff, a union steward. SUF ¶¶ 3-4.
Defendant relies on two cases to support its contentions, Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc., 169 F.3d 1131 (8th Cir. 1999), and Creal v. Springhill Ford, Inc., No. 06 C 0175, 2007 WL 3120106 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2007). In Kiel, a deaf employee requested repeatedly that his company purchase a telecommunications device for him. 169 F.3d at 1134. When a co-owner of the company informed him that the company would not purchase the device, the employee shouted in front of multiple other employees, "You're...
To continue reading
Request your trial