Roberts v. Archbold Med. Ctr., CASE NO.: 7:14–cv–210 (WLS)

• Court: United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Georgia
• Writing for the Court: W. LOUIS SANDS, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Citation: 220 F.Supp.3d 1333
• Docket Number: CASE NO.: 7:14–cv–210 (WLS)
• Decision Date: 16 November 2016
• Parties: James Henry ROBERTS, III, Plaintiff, v. ARCHBOLD MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a Archbold Memorial Hospital, Defendant.

220 F.Supp.3d 1333

James Henry ROBERTS, III, Plaintiff,
v.
ARCHBOLD MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a Archbold Memorial Hospital, Defendant.

CASE NO.: 7:14–cv–210 (WLS)

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division.

Signed November 16, 2016

220 F.Supp.3d 1337

James Garrity, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff.

Frank L. Butler, III, Jeffery Lyn Thompson, Alyssa K. Peters, John Lawrence Weltin, Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete, LLP, Macon, GA, for Defendant.

ORDER

W. LOUIS SANDS, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presently pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Archbold Medical Center ("Archbold") (Doc. 11). For the following reasons, Archbold's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 11) is GRANTED .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 31, 2014, Plaintiff James Henry Roberts III filed the Complaint in this sex discrimination and retaliation action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Doc. 1.) Roberts received a Right to Sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on October 2, 2014 after filing an EEOC charge on February 21, 2014 and a subsequent amendment on June 4, 2014. (Docs. 14 at 21–28.) On March 4, 2016, after the close of discovery, Archbold moved for summary judgment. (Doc. 11.) Roberts responded on March 15, 2016. After receiving an extension of time, Archbold replied on April 14, 2016. (Doc. 21.) The Court finds that Archbold's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 11) is now ripe for review. See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.3.1(a).

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

I. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 allows a party to move for summary judgment where no genuine issue of material fact remains and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. "Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Maddox v. Stephens , 727 F.3d 1109, 1118 (11th Cir. 2013). "A genuine issue of material fact does not exist unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a reasonable jury to return a verdict in its favor." Grimes v. Miami Dade Cnty. , 552 Fed.Appx. 902, 904 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Chapman v. AI Transp. , 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2000) ). "An issue of fact is ‘material’ if it is a legal element of the claim under the applicable substantive law which might affect the outcome of the case." Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc. , 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ). "It is ‘genuine’ if the record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party." Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBH–Siegen , 965 F.2d 994, 998 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) ).

The movant bears the initial burden of showing, by reference to the record, that there is no genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ; Barreto v. Davie Marketplace, LLC , 331 Fed.Appx. 672, 673 (11th Cir. 2009). The movant can meet this burden by presenting

220 F.Supp.3d 1338

evidence showing there is no dispute of material fact, or by demonstrating to the district court that the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on which it bears the ultimate burden of proof. See Celotex , 477 U.S. at 322–24, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Once the movant has met its burden, the nonmoving party is required "to go beyond the pleadings" and identify "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. To avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party "must do more than summarily deny the allegations or ‘show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.’ " Matsushita , 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348 (citations omitted). Instead, the nonmovant must point to record evidence that would be admissible at trial. See Jones v. UPS Ground Freight , 683 F.3d 1283, 1294 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting Macuba v. Deboer , 193 F.3d 1316, 1322 (11th Cir. 1999) ) (noting that hearsay may be considered on a motion for summary judgment only if it "could be reduced to admissible evidence at trial or reduced to admissible form"). Such evidence may include affidavits or declarations that are based on personal knowledge of the affiant or declarant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4).

On a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view all evidence and factual inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether that evidence could reasonably sustain a jury verdict. See Celotex , 477 U.S. at 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548 ; Allen , 121 F.3d at 646. However, the Court must grant summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

II. Local Rule 56

Local Rule 56 requires the following:

The respondent to a motion for summary judgment shall attach to the response a separate and concise statement of material facts, numbered separately, to which the respondent contends there exists a genuine issue to be tried. Response shall be made to each of the movant's numbered material facts. All material facts contained in the moving party's statement which are not specifically controverted by the respondent in respondent's statement shall be deemed to have been admitted, unless otherwise inappropriate.

M.D. Ga. L.R. 56. Here, Archbold properly filed a summary judgment motion with a statement of undisputed facts, as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court. (Doc 11–2.) Roberts filed a document that contains both his own statement of facts and a response to Archbold's statement of facts. (Doc. 17.)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND¹

The following facts are derived from the Complaint (Doc. 1), Archbold's Answer (Doc. 6), Archbold's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Doc. 11–2), Roberts' Response to Archbold's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Doc. 17), and the record in this case. Where relevant, the factual summary also contains undisputed and disputed facts derived from the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits, all of which are construed in a light most favorable to Roberts as the nonmovant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ; Celotex , 477 U.S. at 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

220 F.Supp.3d 1339

Defendant Archbold Medical Center operates hospitals and nursing homes throughout south Georgia, including Archbold Memorial Hospital in Thomasville and Grady General Hospital in Cairo. (Doc. 11–2 at 1.) Plaintiff James Henry "Trey" Roberts III began working in the Bio–Med shop at Archbold Memorial Hospital in Thomasville on December 17, 2007. (Id. ) Horace Hunter supervised the Bio–Med shop until April 2013 and was Roberts' supervisor. (Id. at 1–2.) Clay Newman became the acting supervisor of the Bio–Med shop in April 2013 and eventually became the permanent supervisor. (Id. at 2.) Newman replaced Hunter as Roberts' immediate supervisor. (Id. ) During the relevant time period, both Hunter and Newman reported to Jim Bue, Vice Present of Facilities Management. During the relevant time period, Zach Wheeler was the Senior Vice President of Human Resources. Other Archbold employees who worked in the Bio–Med shop with Roberts included John "Johnny" Ginocchio, Billie "David" Murray, Arthur Lee "Tyrone" Bacon, Nick Norwood, Joel "Ricky" Ross, and Daniel Todd. An issue of fact exists as to whether Ricky Ross and Daniel Todd had supervisory duties and responsibilities within the Bio–Med shop. (Id. at 2–3.) Both stated in their declarations that they did not, but Roberts testified in his deposition that while Horace Hunter was out on medical leave, Ross and Todd handled Bio–Med shop concerns and "held the shop meetings and accountability from there forward." (Compare Docs. 15–6 at ¶ 4; 15–7 at ¶ 4 with Doc. 14 at 46.)

Archbold had sexual harassment and employee grievance policies and procedures with which Roberts was familiar. (Doc. 11–2 at 3–4.) Roberts kept contemporaneous notes of jokes, comments, and actions made within the Bio–Med shop that he considered offensive. (Id. at 4.) Sometime around December 2013, Roberts created a document entitled "Trey's Issues in Bio–Med Dept." in order to track the jokes, comments, and actions he considered offensive for Jim Bue's review. The incidents listed in that document are as follows:

(1) In January 2011, Horace Hunter threatened to, but did not actually, write up Roberts and four other employees for responding to a work order instead of checking email;

...