Robinson v. Bowser
| Decision Date | 22 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | 1:12CV301 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | GERALDINE ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. JOE W. BOWSER, in his official and individual capacity; DURHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; DURHAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD; STAN HOLT, in his official capacity; and GAIL PERRY, in her official capacity, Defendants. |
This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for a recommended ruling on: (1) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (filed by Defendants Joe W. Bowser, in his official capacity as a member of the Durham County Board of County Commissioners, and Durham County Board of County Commissioners) (Docket Entry 74); (2) the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Bowser (in his individual capacity) (Docket Entry 76); and (3) the Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Durham County Department of Social Services Board ("DSS Board"), Defendant Bowser, in his official capacity as a DSS Board Member, Stan Holt, in his official capacity, and Gail Perry, in her official capacity (Docket Entry 82). (See Docket Entry dated July 12, 2013; see also Docket Entry dated Mar. 30, 2012 (assigning caseto undersigned Magistrate Judge).)1 For the reasons that follow, the instant Motions should be granted in part and denied in part in that the Court should enter judgment as a matter of law in favor of Defendants as to all claims except Plaintiff's claim for tortious interference with contract against Defendant Bowser in his individual capacity, but should decline to award attorneys' fees to Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
The instant action arises from a dispute regarding Plaintiff's termination from her position as Director of Social Services of the Durham County Department of Social Services ("DSS"). (See Docket Entry 3.) Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Bowser, a county commissioner and a member of the DSS Board (in both his official and individual capacities), the Durham County Board of County Commissioners, the DSS Board, and Holt and Perry, members of the DSS Board (in their official capacities) "to recover damages and equitable relief from Defendants on account of Defendants' violations of Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C.§ 1983) and also violations of North Carolina statutory and common law." (Id., ¶ 3.)
Plaintiff began as Director of DSS on September 14, 2009. (See Docket Entry 81-1 at 2.)2 The DSS Board at the time of Plaintiff's hire consisted of Defendants Bowser and Holt, Gladys Dunston, Newman Aguiar, and Gloria Green. (See Docket Entry 98-27 at 2; see also Docket Entry 3, ¶ 16.)3 All except Defendant Bowser, who abstained from the vote, voted to hire Plaintiff. (See Docket Entry 98-21 at 3.) In late July 2011, nearly twenty-three months after Plaintiff's hire, the DSS Board, by this time consisting of Carolyn Carver-Tann and Defendants Bowser, Holt and Perry, terminated Plaintiff by a 3-1 vote, with Ms. Carver-Tann representing the sole opposition. (See Docket Entry 81-2 at 2.)
Plaintiff contends that Defendant Bowser orchestrated her termination after she resisted complying with his purportedly improper directives regarding the handling of DSS personnel and clients. (See generally Docket Entry 3.) In that regard, Plaintiff offered testimony that, "in the latter part of 2010"(Docket Entry 84-16 at 7),4 Defendant Bowser pressured Plaintiff to settle what Plaintiff viewed as a groundless EEOC claim with a Hispanic, former DSS employee and, in the course of doing so, told Plaintiff that she "cannot treat these folks the same way you treat blacks" (id. at 7-8);5 that, in the fall of 2010, Defendant Bowser pressured Plaintiff to demote, rather than terminate, a DSS employee and to maintain that employee's pre-demotion salary after demotion (see id. at 12); that (also in the fall of 2010) Defendant Bowser improperly asked Plaintiff to consider the application of Marcia Conner for a position with DSS outside of the normal hiring process (see id. at 14-15); and that, in spring and summer 2011, Defendant Bowser interfered with the handling of certain DSS clients (see id. at 27-28). Plaintiff ultimately refused to comply with the foregoing directives with the exception of the demotion in lieu of termination of the DSS employee (who Plaintiff demoted two levels and who had her salary lowered despite Defendant Bowser's request that she be demoted only one level and maintain her pre-demotion salary (see Docket Entry 99-12 at 3)). (See Docket Entry 84-16 at 16-18.) Moreover, Plaintiff testified that she relayed Defendant Bowser's allegedly improper comments/directives to county attorney Lowell Siler, deputy county manager Marqueta Welton, and interim county manager Michael Palmer, among others. (See, e.g., Docket Entry 104-1 at 5-6.)
In 2011, Defendant Bowser met with Defendant Perry, who was not yet a member of the DSS Board, at which time Defendant Bowser "mentioned concern about DSS under the leadership of [Plaintiff]" (Docket Entry 98-26 at 4) and asked whether Defendant Perry would consider a position on the DSS Board if one became available (id.). Defendant Bowser then convened a second meeting with Defendants Perry and Holt, in which Defendant Bowser suggested that Defendant Perry could become the interim director after Plaintiff's removal. (Id. at 6-10.) Subsequently, Defendant Bowser discouraged, and did not vote for, the reappointment to the DSS Board of Ms. Green (see Docket Entry 98-18 at 2-3), who (from Defendant Bowser's perspective) approved of Plaintiff's performance (see Docket Entry 84-10 at 8), and voted to appoint Defendant Perry (see Docket Entry 98-18 at 2). At Defendant Perry's first meeting as a member, the DSS Board rendered the 3-1 vote terminating Plaintiff's employment. (See Docket Entry 81-2 at 2; Docket Entry 3, ¶ 26.)
Plaintiff's performance reviews during her employment were in large part positive. (See Docket Entries 99-1, 99-2.) However, although, in Plaintiff's six-month review (dated April 21, 2010), the DSS Board "recommend[ed] that [Plaintiff] become[] a permanentemployee with [DSS] effective immediately" (Docket Entry 99-1 at 2), Defendant Holt testified that he would have voted for Plaintiff's termination had a formal vote occurred at that time (see Docket Entry 81-29 at 18) due to concerns regarding Plaintiff's "her way or the highway" management style (id. at 8), her relationships with community partners (id. at 12), and, ultimately, a belief that Plaintiff "was not a fit for [DSS]" (id. at 16). Similarly, according to Defendant Bowser's testimony, both Defendant Holt and then-DSS Board member Mr. Aguiar opposed making Plaintiff a permanent employee (see Docket Entry 84-10 at 3) and Defendant Bowser was "in the middle" because he "was not satisfied with . . . [her] performance" (id. at 6), but he "felt that it would be very unfair to take [her] out at that six-month interval" (id.). Plaintiff, in fact, knew of these issues as evidenced by her April 2010 e-mail to Mr. Aguiar requesting a meeting to address his "expressed concerns with [her] management style and profile in the Durham community." (Docket Entry 81-21 at 2.)
Similar criticisms plagued Plaintiff even a year later, when the April 2011 performance review that classified her performance as "most satisfactory" (Docket Entry 84-2 at 3) also noted the existence of "rough spots that must be addressed" (id.), described Plaintiff as only provisionally compliant in, among other areas, "Staff Treatment" (id. at 4) and noted in that regard: "[The DSS] Board raised concerns about staff/administrator relationships emphasizing the need for increased morale within the organizations and being kept abreast of outstanding complaints that employeeshave or will file for EEOC intervention" (id. at 2). In addition, in an appearance before the DSS Board in April 2011 with Plaintiff in attendance, County Manager Mike Ruffin noted generally that he "found [Plaintiff] . . . to be impersonal and abrasive in her management style" (Docket Entry 84-17 at 3) - an opinion which he based on his own "personal observations [as well as] written complaints" (id. at 4) - and suggested that Plaintiff hire a job coach (see Docket Entry 84-12 at 5), which Plaintiff demonstratively declined to do (see Docket Entry 81-26 at 24-25).
Moreover, a number of DSS employees (or former DSS employees) raised concerns regarding Plaintiff's leadership. An unsigned letter addressed to Defendant Bowser complained that DSS "has hit rock bottom in just nine months . . . because [Plaintiff] is not a leader or a team player [and] is cold, rude, inconsiderate and rigid." (Docket Entry 81-3 at 3.) In another letter, a departing DSS employee noted that she "cannot work for [Plaintiff]" and further asserted that eight key staff members also left over management concerns. (Docket Entry 81-4 at 3.)6 A third letter - in this case a resignation letter addressed to then-DSS Board member Dunston - also complained of an inability to work with Plaintiff and asserted that Plaintiff "made it a point to humiliate, intimidate, and harass [that employee]." (Docket Entry 81-6 at 2.)
Although Plaintiff has presented evidence that DSS employee morale was chronically low for reasons beyond her management style (see Docket Entry 98-29 at 4), that employee attrition under her watch was no more pronounced than in prior years (see id. at 4-5), and that the employees who complained of, or who were cited as having left due to, Plaintiff's management style all had independent reasons for departing/being terminated from DSS (see Docket Entry 99-16 at 1-8), Defendants Bowser, Holt and Perry testified that Plaintiff's leadership/managerial concerns and community relationship issues, rather than Plaintiff's action or inaction on Defendant Bowser's directives, led to their votes to fire Plaintiff (see Docket Entries 81-25 at...
To continue reading
Request your trial