Smith v. Bank Of Stanly

• Decision Date: 11 February 2011
• Docket Number: NO.:1:09CV951,:1:09CV951
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
• Parties: DANIELLE C. SMITH,Plaintiff, v. BANK OF STANLY,Defendant.

DANIELLE C. SMITH, Plaintiff,

v.BANK OF STANLY, Defendant.

NO.:1:09CV951

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Dated: February 11, 2011

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for a recommended ruling on Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket Entry 12) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 22). (See Docket Entries dated June 16 and Dec. 20, 2010; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1).) For reasons that follow, the Court should grant Defendant's summary judgment motion and deny its motion for judgment on the pleadings as moot.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that she was "punished and terminated... as a result of Defendant's unlawful discrimination and retaliation... in violation of Federal Law...." (Docket Entry 2 at 10.)¹ More specifically, it declares:

1) "Defendant has treated female employees, including Plaintiff, unequally to male employees" (id.);² 2) "Defendant's adverse actions against Plaintiff in and related to her employment were substantially related to her sex and the conduct of her husband, rather than her own conduct, and Defendant's adverse actions against Plaintiff related to her sex and the conduct of her husband were not proper and amount to discrimination against Plaintiff in employment related to her sex. (Violations of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964.)" (id. (parentheses in original));³

3) "Defendant has also retaliated against Plaintiff related to her expressions of concern about Defendant's unequal treatment of Plaintiff and other female employees related to employment in violation of Federal Law prohibiting such retaliation" (id.); and 4) "Defendant has also discriminated against Plaintiff in her employment related to her association with someone with disability, her husband, in violation of federal law. [Violations of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).]" (id. (brackets in original)).

In addition, although Plaintiff's Complaint does not expressly assert a claim for sex discrimination in the form of a hostile work environment, it does allege that:

1) "[i]n December 2006, Defendant's President verbally assaulted Plaintiff, using profanity, at work in response to a scheduling inquiry" (id. at 2 (emphasis added));

2) "[m]ales in similar roles with Defendant were not treated as harshly and derogatorily as Plaintiff was treated by Defendant's President" (id.);

3) "[i]n December 2006, Plaintiff reported the harassment to Defendant's Vice President of Human Resources, as Plaintiff understood was the appropriate action in the case of such harassment" (id. (emphasis added)); and

4) "[i]n [a] December 10, 2007 meeting, Defendant's male officials discussed Plaintiff's medical situation and a sexual relationship Plaintiff's husband had with his therapist and also made several inappropriate and wrongful comments to Plaintiff related to other personal matters" (id. at 3 (emphasis added)).

During the discovery period, Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's ADA claim. (Docket Entry 12.) Plaintiff responded in opposition and Defendant replied. (Docket Entries 14 and 15.) After discovery ended, Defendant moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims. (Docket Entry 22.) In support of that motion, Defendant filed a brief (Docket Entry 23), to which it attached:

1) an affidavit from Tammie Aldridge, an employee of Defendant, who worked with Plaintiff (Docket Entry 23-2);

2) an affidavit from Susan Gibson, Vice President of Human Resources for the holding company to which Defendant belongs, withmemoranda from Plaintiff's personnel file and excerpts from Defendant's employee conduct code (Docket Entry 23-3);

3) an affidavit from Sandy Hinson, the manager of Harmanco's Restaurant in Albemarle, North Carolina, the site of an altercation involving Plaintiff, her husband, and a friend on March 15, 2008 (Docket Entry 23-4);

4) an affidavit from Willie D. Lawhon, Defendant's President (Docket Entry 23-5);

5) an affidavit from John McIntyre, a Senior Vice President for Defendant (Docket Entry 23-6);

6) excerpts from the transcript of Plaintiff's deposition from October 19 and November 9, 2010 (Docket Entry 23-7);

7) excerpts from the transcript of the deposition of Plaintiff's husband on November 10, 2010 (Docket Entry 23-7); and

8) a copy of a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") signed by Plaintiff on September 23, 2008 (Docket Entry 23-9).

Plaintiff responded in opposition (Docket Entry 26) and attached thereto:

1) two affidavits from Plaintiff dated December 17, 2010, and an unsigned EEOC Charge of Discrimination form dated September 19, 2008 (Docket Entry 26-1);

2) Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents dated June 21, 2010 (Docket Entry 26-2); 3) a transcript of Plaintiff's deposition from October 19 and November 9, 2010 (Docket Entries 26-3 through 26-10);

4) a transcript of the deposition of Plaintiff's husband from November 10, 2010 (Docket Entry 26-11);

5) a transcript of the deposition of William Gary Burris, Jr. (the friend of Plaintiff and her husband who was involved in the March 2008 altercation at Harmanco's Restaurant) from October 25, 2010 (Docket Entry 26-12); and

6) affidavits from Plaintiff's sister, husband, father, and doctor, as well as from Burris, James Pope (an Albemarle Police Department detective and friend of Plaintiff's father), Suzie Shue (a former employee of Defendant), and Nonnie Luther (a friend of Plaintiff's) (Docket Entry 26-13).

Defendant filed a reply (Docket Entry 27), with a supplemental affidavit from Vice President Gibson (Docket Entry 27-1).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND⁴

Plaintiff grew up in Stanly County, North Carolina. (Docket Entry 26-3 at 5.) She graduated from high school in 1991 and completed less than a year of college. (Id.) Plaintiff gotmarried in 1992. (Id.) In 1996, after working various cashier and clerical jobs, including a short stint as a part-time teller, Plaintiff became a customer service representative for Central Carolina Bank ("CCB"). (Id. at 8-9.) Over the next few years, Plaintiff worked in a number of different CCB branches and moved into successively higher positions; by 2003, she had become the manager of CCB's branch in Norwood, North Carolina. (Id. at 9-10.) "[T]he only complaint [Plaintiff] ever had with [that] job was [that she] wanted to be licensed to do [her] own investments..., [but that] was just not in the works...." (Id. at 11.)

Defendant "is a community bank with a customer base primarily in small towns in Stanly County and surrounding counties in North Carolina." (Docket Entry 23-5 at 2.) In 2004, President Lawhon "called [Plaintiff] and asked [her] if [she] would be interested in working [for Defendant]." (Docket Entry 26-3 at 11.) Plaintiff "met with [President Lawhon] and [Vice President Gibson], and [she] talked to [President Lawhon] several times on the telephone over the course of several months, and then [they] met and finalized everything." (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff accepted Defendant's offer to become "[t]he manager of [its] Norwood office" because Defendant would give her "[t]he opportunity to become licensed [in connection with the offering of investments]." (Id.)⁵

Plaintiff Quickly Sours on Working for Defendant

Even early in her tenure with Defendant, Plaintiff was not "happy, " because she "started finding things out that [she] didn't agree with... [like] the way women were treated differently." (Id. at 17.) Plaintiff "first s[aw] some evidence of [differential treatment]... [w]hen [her uncle] asked [her] shortly after she came to work [for Defendant] if Roger [Dick] had married the lady that he had gotten knocked up." (Id.) Dick was "[t]he CEO of the holding company" to which Defendant and two other banks belonged (Docket Entry 23-5 at 7; Docket Entry 26-5 at 8) and reported to the holding company's board of directors (Docket Entry 23-5 at 7; Docket Entry 26-6 at 6). The woman in question was "an employee [of Defendant]." (Docket Entry 26-3 at 18.) Plaintiff never spoke directly to CEO Dick or said woman about the matter and does not know "what if anything happened between [them]." (Id. at 17-18.)⁶

In addition, President Lawhon made comments to Plaintiff about when certain "older ladies [who worked in the Norwood office] were going to retire" and how one such employee "made too much money to not be a lending officer, and it was because she had been there so long." (Docket Entry 26-7 at 14.) According to her deposition testimony, Plaintiff complained about these comments in a meetingwith President Lawhon and Vice President Gibson on March 26, 2008, and on unspecified prior occasions; however, she failed to describe the nature of her complaints. (Docket Entry 26-10 at 2-3.)

Plaintiff also had the following experiences that she perceived as disparate treatment based on her gender:

1) in one meeting, Plaintiff "was the only woman, and [President Lawhon] said, 'I need somebody to take notes, ' and they all looked at [Plaintiff] to take notes[,]'... [whereupon she] said, 'Just because I'm the only woman here doesn't mean I have to take notes, '" and she did not (Docket Entry 26-6 at 8);

2) "male employees were allowed to have outside employment, "⁷but, when Plaintiff's husband started a "tax office" in 2006, Vice President Gibson said Plaintiff "needed to just stay arm's length away from the company" (Docket Entry 26-7 at 13-14);

3) some male employees had "expense accounts to go take people to play golf, " but Plaintiff (who "never tried" golf) lacked "an equivalent" (Docket Entry 26-9 at 15);⁸ and

4) Defendant "allowed" "branch managers" and "senior vice presidents" to have "expense cards" and when she asked for such a card on various, unspecified occasions she was told "[s...