White v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty.
| Decision Date | 24 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:11-cv-0607 |
| Parties | RITA WHITE, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
MEMORANDUM
Defendant Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County ("Metro Nashville") has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 32), to which the plaintiff, Rita White, has filed a Response in opposition (Docket No. 43), and Metro Nashville has filed a Reply (Docket No. 47).1 For the reasons stated herein, Metro Nashville's motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
White worked within the Metro Nashville Police Department ("MNPD") from 1981 to 2010. During the period of time relevant to this lawsuit, she worked within the MNPD'swarrants division as a Warrant Clerk. Warrant Clerks perform a number of functions, including filing warrants, preparing reports, pulling warrants, and answering radio calls from police officers requesting warrant checks. .2 For an unspecified period of time, White worked as a Warrant Clerk on the night shift, during which she performed all of these specified duties.
At an unspecified point in or before 2001, White bid for and received a position as a Warrant Clerk on the day shift, under the assumption that she would be able to rotate through the various Warrant Clerk roles.3 However, when White took the day shift job, she was assigned primarily to work radio duty and seldom rotated positions. According to White, the radio position, unlike other Warrant Clerk rotations, is physically isolating (the radio operator is confined to the radio room) and highly stressful. Soon after taking the day shift position, White made numerous requests to her supervisors to join the Warrant Clerk rotation, all of which were denied.
In October 2006, while White was on radio duty, she received a call from a police officer seeking to verify a warrant. Within a matter of seconds, White purported to confirm to that officer that the individual to be served was the correct person identified on the warrant.However, this statement was erroneous: the officer arrested the wrong person, who ultimately filed a lawsuit in October 2007 against Metro Nashville (and various other parties) stemming from that incident. See Milligan v. United States, 670 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2012). White was not named as a party to the Milligan lawsuit. In fact, White's supervisors have testified that they did not even know of White's role in the underlying incident until after the Milligan lawsuit was filed, at which point Metro Nashville conducted an internal investigation. Indeed, notwithstanding the October 2006 incident, White received an acceptable employment evaluation from her supervisor, Lieutenant Robert Tindell, for the year 2006 and received an acceptable employment evaluation from a different supervisor, Sergeant Mark Garafola, for the year 2007.
White continued to request the opportunity to rotate to other roles, as she maintained other Warrant Clerks had been permitted to do. However, at least as of 2007, Lieutenant Tindall and Sergeant Garafola informed her that she could not perform any function other than radio duty because she was dyslexic and/or had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD"). Although White admits that she has ADHD, she avers that she is not dyslexic, steadfastly maintains that she did not tell any supervisors or co-workers that she is dyslexic, and claims to have informed her supervisors that she is not dyslexic and could have performed other Warrant Clerk functions.4 Despite White's protestations, Lieutenant Tindall and Sergeant Garafolacontinued to deny White the opportunity to join the rotation, at least in part on the basis that her dyslexia would hinder her ability to perform these other job duties.5 Furthermore, Lieutenant Tindall stated in front of other co-workers that White was dyslexic, which White construed as an attempt to sully her reputation in the workplace.
In 2008, White made additional requests to rotate to positions other than radio duty, which Sergeant Garafola and/or Lieutenant Tindall denied on the basis that White was dyslexic. During that same time frame, when White sought to take a bathroom break, the other Warrant Clerks refused to step in and cover the radio, which White attributed to the negative perceptions that her co-workers formed after hearing negative comments about her from her supervisors. In connection with that incident, one of White's co-workers ordered her to bring a radio transmitter with her into the bathroom so that she would not miss any calls, which she found to be a demeaning deviation from typical practice and which a former co-worker described as "comical." (See Docket No. 40, Ex. G, Donya King Dep. at 23:4-5.) The MNPD later disciplined the MNPD employee who gave that order. (See Docket No. 40, Ex. E, Roller Dep. 19:14-23.)
At some point in the first half of the year 2008, White alleges that Sergeant Garafolabegan falsely accusing her of not adequately performing her job duties. According to White, he made these accusations in a loud and disrespectful manner and sometimes made them in front of other employees. White contends that these accusations contributed to a hostile work environment in which her co-workers treated her as a "less than" and shunned her because of her perceived disabilities.
A co-worker of White's, Officer Clifford Mann, offered deposition testimony that corroborates some of White's testimony about Sergreant Garafola. (Id., Ex. R, Mann Dep. 15:2-16:1; 21:1-24:23.) Officer Mann testified that Sergeant Garafola made "disparaging" and "unfavorable" remarks about White, singled her out for particularized negative treatment, and treated other employees more favorably than White. In his opinion, "that kind of behavior [Garafola's] can drive a person to a point where it can be so uncomfortable on the job that they would want to leave, yes." (Id. 24:7-20.)
In June 2008, White filed a grievance against Sergeant Garafola, in which she contended that, due to Sergeant Garafola's conduct, she was "being harassed and subject to a hostile work environment" for seven enumerated reasons. (White Aff., Ex. 4.) Lieutenant Tindell initially handled the grievance and found all but one of White's seven enumerated complaints to be without merit. In July 2008,White appealed Lieutenant Tindall's decision to a Grievance Panel, to which she argued that she was being falsely accused of failing to perform job duties and that her supervisors had unfairly denied her requests to rotate positions on the (unjustified) basis that she had dyslexia. Although the Grievance Panel denied the appeal, it recommended that White "should be offered the opportunity to rotate to job assignments such as warrant entry, if she feels she can perform these duties in an acceptable manner." (Docket No. 40, Ex. 4.) After severalfurther administrative appeals, White's grievances were ultimately denied. Following the last of these appeals, she signed a document on August 18, 2008, acknowledging receipt of the final determination of her grievance against Sergeant Garafola.
Notwithstanding the Grievance Panel's recommendation, White was not permitted to rotate positions for the remainder of her employment at the MNPD, despite numerous requests to do so. Again, White avers that her supervisors informed her that she could not rotate positions because she was dyslexic. Furthermore, White contends that, after she filed the grievance against Sergeant Garafola, his disparaging conduct towards her increased in severity.
On August 18, 2008 - the same day that she was asked to sign the final denial of her grievances against Sergeant Garafola - White received a formal notice that she was being charged with a policy violation relating to her conduct in October 2006 (nearly two years earlier) in connection with the false arrest of Paula Milligan. Prior to receiving that notice, no one at MNPD had interviewed her about the incident or indicated that she could face disciplinary action. Despite Lieutenant Tindall's suggestion that she accept a four-day suspension for that alleged violation, White refused to settle the matter and requested a disciplinary hearing.
While her request for a disciplinary hearing was pending, White filed a formal charge of disability discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on November 4, 2008. (White Aff., Ex. 10) ("First EEOC Charge").6 White contends that the discrimination and harassment against her continued, including being forced by a co-worker to carry her radio into the bathroom.
On December 11, 2008 - five weeks after filing the First EEOC Charge - White received a notification that her upcoming disciplinary hearing would take place in January 2009. However, that scheduling notification also informed her that she was now being charged with two policy violations related to the October 2006 Milligan incident: (1) her previous charge, for which the MNPD continued to seek a four-day suspension, and (2) a new charge based on the same conduct, for which the MNPD sought an additional three-day suspension.
On December 18, 2008 - approximately six months after filing her grievance against Sergeant Garafola and six weeks after filing the First EEOC Charge against the MNPD - Sergeant Garafola gave White a negative performance evaluation, which rated her performance substantially lower than in previous years and, under a performance plan, initially obligated her to attend multiple classes related to workplace etiquette.
On January 14, 2009 - approximately 10 weeks after filing the First EEOC charge - White appeared for the departmental hearing concerning the two policy violations related to her October 2006 conduct. The MNPD found that both violations were merited and ordered...
To continue reading
Request your trial