Smith v. Alabama Dept. of Public Safety, CIV.A.98-D-340-N.

• Decision Date: 20 September 1999
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A.98-D-340-N.,CIV.A.98-D-340-N.
• Citation: 64 F.Supp.2d 1215
• Parties: Billy SMITH, Plaintiff, v. ALABAMA DEP'T OF PUB. SAFETY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

64 F.Supp.2d 1215

Billy SMITH, Plaintiff, v. ALABAMA DEP'T OF PUB. SAFETY, Defendant.

No. CIV.A.98-D-340-N.

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division.

September 20, 1999.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Marvin W. Wiggins, April A. England, Selma, AL, for Plaintiff.

William G. McKnight, Dept. of Public Safety, Legal Unit, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DE MENT, District Judge.

Before the court is Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment ("Def.'s Mot."), along with its Brief In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment ("Def.'s Br.") and Evidentiary Submission, filed on June 14, 1999. On July 13, 1999, Plaintiff filed a Brief In Opposition To The Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment, which the court construes as a Response ("Pl.'s Resp."), along with his Evidentiary Submission In Opposition To Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment. Defendant filed a Reply Brief In Support Of Summary Judgment Motion ("Def.'s Reply") on July 20, 1999. On August 19, 1999, Plaintiff filed his Supplemental Response To The Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment ("Pl.'s Supp. Resp."). After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant law, and the record as a whole, the court finds that Defendant's Motion is due to be granted.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The court properly exercises subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(4), 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. The Parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

On a motion for summary judgment, the court is to construe the evidence and factual inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). Summary judgment can be entered on a claim only if it is shown "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). As the Supreme Court has explained the summary judgment standard:

[T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be no genuine issue as to any material fact, since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)).

The trial court's function at this juncture is not "to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (citations omitted). A dispute about a material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see also Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 933 (11th Cir.1989).

The party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and of establishing, based on relevant "portions of `the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,'" that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (citing Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c)). The mechanics of satisfying the initial burden vary, however, depending upon which party, the movant or the nonmovant, bears the burden of proof at trial. See Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir.1993) (detailing the nature of the parties' responsibilities when preparing or defending against a motion for summary judgment).

Once this initial demonstration under Rule 56(c) is made, the burden of production, not persuasion, shifts to the nonmoving party. The nonmoving party must "go beyond the pleadings and by [his or] her own affidavits, or by the `depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate `specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). In meeting this burden, the nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Corp. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). That party must demonstrate that there is a "genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); see also Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505. An action is void of a material issue for trial "[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Billy Smith, an African-American male, began working as a State Trooper with Defendant Alabama Department of Public Safety ("DPS") in March of 1975. (Compl. at 3.) Although Plaintiff worked at various DPS locations throughout the State, he moved to Selma, Alabama in 1983 and has lived there since that time. (Smith Dep. at 12-18.) In February of 1988, Plaintiff was assigned to the Selma Driver's Licence Office where he served as a Corporal for eight years. (Id. at 17-18.) As part of a statewide departmental reorganization and effort to eliminate supervisory positions in local units ("departmental reorganization"), Plaintiff and his supervisor, Lieutenant Virgil Spain, were transferred to Montgomery in November of 1995. (Pl.'s Resp. at 3; Smith Dep. at 29.) At this point, the Selma District of the DPS was dissolved and incorporated into the Montgomery District. (Pl.'s Resp. at 3.)

After the transfer, Plaintiff was allowed to continue living in Selma, and Defendant provided him with a state car for the commute to his new position in Montgomery. (Smith Dep. at 103-04.) Additionally, Plaintiff did not lose any pay, rank, or benefit as a result of the transfer. (Shoemaker Dep. at 20-21.) However, Plaintiff neither received, nor was he eligible to receive, a promotion at the time of his transfer. (Smith Dep. at 78-79; Speight Aff. at 2-3.) In short, Plaintiff's transfer to Montgomery was a lateral one. (Shoemaker Dep. at 20-21.)

Upon his arrival in Montgomery, Plaintiff started training under Sergeant Curtis Luther, the Chief Review Officer for DPS, to become Sergeant Luther's successor. (Smith Dep. at 19-20; Shoemaker Dep. at 28.) Sergeant Luther subsequently retired and when Plaintiff became eligible for promotion to Sergeant, he was appointed to fill Sergeant Luther's position. (Shoemaker Dep. at 22.) However, despite the success that Plaintiff enjoyed in Montgomery, he always wanted to return to his position in Selma. (Smith Dep. at 37.) Therefore, when Defendant re-established the Selma Assistant Post Commander Position ("Selma position") in December of 1995, Plaintiff quickly applied for the job. (Smith Dep. at 72; Pl.Ex. 3.)

The Selma position was re-established after Defendant recognized that there was still a need for a supervisory officer back at the Selma Post once the departmental reorganization had been completed. (Shoemaker Dep. at 24-26; Def.'s Reply at 4.) This new position involved many of the same duties that Plaintiff had previously performed while working in Selma and the pay, rank, and benefits were identical to what Plaintiff had received in his previous Selma job. (Shoemaker Dep. at 25-26.) However, the Selma position was not exactly the same as Plaintiff's previous position in Selma because it was now supervised out of the Montgomery Post due to the departmental reorganization. (Id.) Although the Selma position would have been a lateral move rather than a promotion for Plaintiff, it would have allowed Plaintiff to work closer to his home. (Shoemaker Dep. at 25-26.)

In January of 1996, Plaintiff, along with Corporal Terry Chapman and Corporal Kevin Claunch, both of whom are Caucasian, applied for the Selma position. (Def.'s Ex. 15.) Corporal Chapman, who held the same classification as Plaintiff, was eventually selected for the job. (Shoemaker Dep. at 26.) Although Corporal Chapman met the qualifications for the Selma position, Plaintiff felt that he was more qualified than Corporal Chapman for the job. (Pl.'s Resp. at 3.)

After Plaintiff was denied the Selma position, he filed an employee departmental grievance alleging racial discrimination. (Compl. at 3.) In this grievance, Plaintiff stated that "[t]here are other collateral matters relative to this incident that I will address in the near future." (Pl.'s Ex. G) However, when ordered by his supervisor, Captain Roscoe Howell, to disclose the information regarding the "other collateral matters," Plaintiff refused to do so. (Id.) After Plaintiff repeatedly refused to cooperate with the investigation of his employee grievance, Colonel Gene Mitchell, then director of DPS, reprimanded Plaintiff for failing to obey a lawful order by a superior officer. (Id.) This reprimand was issued on March 11, 1996. (Id.)

On June 3, 1996, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") regarding both his transfer from Selma to Montgomery and the denial of his application for the Selma position. (Def.'s Ex. 27.) Subsequent to filing his EEOC complaint, Plaintiff received "meets standards" evaluations from his supervisors, as opposed to the "exceeds standards" evaluations that he had consistently received before. (Pl.'s Resp. at 12.) On December 17, 1997, Plaintiff filed an amended EEOC...