Rosane v. Shannon Cnty. Sch. Dist. 65-1
| Decision Date | 14 June 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ. 11–5020–JLV.,Civ. 11–5020–JLV. |
| Citation | 953 F.Supp.2d 1020 |
| Parties | Terri L. ROSANE, Plaintiff, v. SHANNON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 65–1, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael M. Hickey, Sarah Baron Houy, Bangs, McCullen, Butler, Foye & Simmons, Rapid City, SD, for Plaintiff.
Naomi R. Cromwell, Richard Paul Tieszen, Jessica L. Filler, Wade Lee Fischer, Tieszen Law Office, Pierre, SD, for Defendant.
Pending before the court is defendant Shannon County School District 65–1's (“District”) motion for summary judgment. (Docket 56). The court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Veronica L. Duffy for resolution. (Docket 65). On March 5, 2013, Magistrate Judge Duffy filed a report recommending the court grant in part and deny in part defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Docket 69). Magistrate Judge Duffy recommended granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff's hostile work environment claim, denying defendant summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliation claim, and denying defendant summary judgment on its claim of sovereign immunity. Id. Defendant timely filed objections. (Docket 70). Plaintiff filed a response to defendants' objections.1 (Docket 71).
The court reviews de novo those portions of the report and recommendation which are the subject of objections. Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357–58 (8th Cir.1990); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court may then “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
For the reasons stated below, defendant's objections are overruled. The court adopts the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge in its entirety.
A. DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
District asserts the magistrate judge erred in denying it summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliation claim and in denying relief to District under the affirmative defense of statutory sovereign immunity. Neither plaintiff nor defendant object to the portion of the magistrate judge's recommendation granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff's hostile work environment claim.
Title VII declares “[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of [its] employees ... because [an employee] has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter....” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a).
“To defeat summary judgment on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must produce either direct evidence of retaliation or create an inference of retaliation under the McDonnell Douglas2 burden-shifting framework.” Pye v. Nu Aire, Inc., 641 F.3d 1011, 1020 (8th Cir.2011) (citing Young–Losee v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc., 631 F.3d 909, 912 (8th Cir.2011) (citation omitted)). Ms. Rosane does not assert direct evidence of retaliation. Under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the issue is whether Ms. Rosane has presented “an inference of retaliation.” Pye, 641 F.3d at 1020.
In Title VII cases, the burden-shifting framework consists of three steps. Id. at 1021. First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for her claim. Id. Second, the defendant has the opportunity to offer a non-retaliatory reason for its action. Id. Third, the plaintiff has the opportunity to prove the defendant's stated non-retaliatory reason was merely pretext. Id.
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the plaintiff must show (1) she engaged in a protected activity; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection existed between the adverse employment action and the protected conduct. Ross v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 293 F.3d 1041, 1051 (8th Cir.2002).
In analyzing plaintiff's claim and viewing the facts, and inferences from those facts, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the magistrate judge concluded (1) Ms. Rosane engaged in a protected activity “by filing her internal grievance and by filing her charge of discrimination with the SDDHR”; (2) Ms. Rosane suffered an adverse employment action whether she felt forced to resign or was terminated; and (3) a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the cause of Ms. Rosane's termination. (Docket 69 at pp. 1045–47). The magistrate judge recommended denying summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed concerning the District's motives in terminating Ms. Rosane. Id. at pp. 1047–48.
District objects to the entirety of the magistrate judge's analysis relating to plaintiff's retaliation claim. Specifically, defendant argues the magistrate judge erred in finding that: (1) plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies; (2) plaintiff engaged in a protected activity; (3) plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action; (4) a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding defendant's motives for terminating the plaintiff; and (5) a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding pretext. (Docket 70). District also objects to the magistrate judge's decision not to consider the final stage of the McDonnell Douglas analysis. Id. Each of these objections will be discussed separately.
Prior to filing a federal lawsuit, a Title VII claimant must exhaust administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(b)–(c). The claimant must first file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) or with the state's Division of Human Rights. Id. In this case, plaintiff filed a charge with the South Dakota Division of Human Rights (“SDDHR”). Once the claim is filed, SDDHR investigates the charge and issues a determination of probable cause. Id. A finding of no probable cause is considered a final agency action for purposes of appeal. SDCL § 20–13–28.1. If SDDHR makes a finding of no probable cause, the claimant can choose to appeal under the South Dakota Administrative Procedures Act or can appeal the SDDHR decision to the EEOC. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(c)–(e), SDCL § 1–26–30. If the party chooses to file a complaint in federal court, the party must first obtain a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. Id. at § 2000e–5(f)(1).
“The reason for requiring the pursuit of administrative remedies first is to provide the EEOC with an initial opportunity to investigate allegations of employment discrimination and to work with the parties toward voluntary compliance and conciliation.” Parisi v. Boeing Co., 400 F.3d 583, 585 (8th Cir.2005). “The proper exhaustion of administrative remedies gives the plaintiff a green light to bring her employment-discrimination claim, along with allegations that are ‘like or reasonably related’ to that claim, in federal court.” Id. (citing Shannon v. Ford Motor Co., 72 F.3d 678, 684 (8th Cir.1996)). Federal courts will “liberally construe an administrative charge for exhaustion of remedies purposes.” Id. However, “there is a difference between liberally reading a claim which lacks specificity, and inventing, ex nihilo, a claim which simply was not made.” Id. (citation omitted). “The claims of employment discrimination in the complaint may be as broad as the scope of the EEOC investigation which reasonably could be expected to result from the administrative charge.” Id.
On October 14, 2009, plaintiff filed her charge of discrimination with the SDDHR, checking the boxes for discrimination based on race and retaliation. (Docket 56–24). Plaintiff's allegation of retaliation stemmed from the District's proposed involuntary transfer to Wolf Creek. Id. SDDHR issued a determination of no probable cause and dismissed the charge on February 11, 2010. (Docket 56–25). Plaintiff then appealed to the EEOC. On December 7, 2010, the EEOC adopted the findings of SDDHR and issued the plaintiff a notice of right-to-sue. (Docket 56–26). Plaintiff received the right-to-sue letter on December 10, 2010, and thereafter filed this lawsuit on March 9, 2011. (Docket 1).
In this case, District argues plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies related to her retaliation claim because her original charge contemplated the involuntary transfer rather than termination of employment. The plaintiff's administrative charge states, in part, (Docket 56–24). Plaintiff's federal complaint contends District retaliated against her “by telling her to learn the Lakota language, threatening to transfer her to another school, failing to investigate the complaints of Plaintiff, and otherwise creating an intolerable working environment such that she was forced to resign.” (Docket 1 at p. 5). The magistrate judge properly noted the issues as “whether Ms. Rosane's allegedly retaliatory termination is ‘like or reasonably related’ to the retaliation claim regarding the proposed involuntary transfer listed in her administrative charge.” (Docket 69 at p. 1037).
The magistrate judge analyzed two decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit discussing the requirement that federal claims be “like or reasonably related” to the claims brought in the administrative proceedings. (Docket 69 at pp. 1037–39) (citing Richter v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., 686 F.3d 847, 852 (8th Cir.2012) and Wedow v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 442 F.3d 661, 673 (8th Cir.2006)).
In Richter, a claimant filed an administrative charge alleging sex and race discrimination but did not check the box for retaliation. Richter, 686 F.3d at 849. After receiving her right-to-sue letter, the claimant brought a federal action alleging she was terminated in retaliation for...
To continue reading
Request your trial