Williams v. Louisiana
| Decision Date | 27 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1670 |
| Parties | PATRICIA WILLIAMS v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER-SHREVEPORT, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Before the court are a motion for summary judgment and a motion to strike filed by the defendants, the Board of Supervisors, of Louisiana State University Agricultural & Mechanical College ("LSU") and Joe Miciotto ("Miciotto"), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. See Record Documents 50 and 63. For the reasons set forth below, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The defendants' motion to strike is DENIED as moot.
Patricia Williams ("Williams"), an African American, has worked at LSU's Health Sciences Center in Shreveport since 1975. See Record Document 57, Ex. A-1 at 1. Williams was originally employed as an operating room nurse until shewas promoted to Nursing Director in 1985. See id. In 1993, Williams was again promoted, this time to Assistant Hospital Administrator in the Ambulatory Care Division, which oversees the Health Science Center's outpatient care system. See id. Ex. A-1 at 2-3.
In 1995, Williams applied to be the Assistant Hospital Administrator for Patient Care Services/Chief Nurse Officer (hereinafter "CNO"), which oversees the inpatient care system. See id. Ex. A-2 at 33. However, Williams was not selected for an interview, and the position was filled by Jodi Alphin, a white female. See id. Williams again applied for the position in 2000. See id., Ex. A-2 at 36. Williams was selected for an interview, but the job went to Pamela Simmons ("Simmons"), Ph.D., an African-American female. See id., Ex. A-2 at 38. Williams applied for the position a third time in 2008 when Simmons retired. The events surrounding the 2008 selection process form the basis of this lawsuit.
Before Simmons retired in 2008, she recommended that Jean DiGrazia ("DiGrazia"), a white female and the Inpatient Nursing Director for Women's and Children's Services and for Surgical Services, be appointed interim CNO.1 See Record Document 50, Ex. I at ¶ 7. Miciotto, the Hospital Administrator, approvedSimmons's recommendation and DiGrazia was appointed as interim CNO. See id.
A selection committee was formed to fill the CNO vacancy. The selection committee was comprised of Miciotto, Betty Johnson ("Johnson"), the Associate Hospital Administrator, and Dr. Kevin Sittig ("Dr. Sittig"), the Senior Associate Dean of LSU Medical School and assistant to the Chief Medical Officer. See id., Ex. I at ¶ 8. In April 2008, LSU posted and publicly announced the opening for the CNO position. See id., Ex. B at 17-20. Numerous candidates, including Williams, submitted applications.
The selection committee narrowed the field of candidates to three semi-finalists: DiGrazia, Williams, and an external candidate, Delia Austin ("Austin"). See id., Ex. B. at 17. Each of the three candidates was allotted a full day for interviews with the selection committee and various groups, including nursing managers and directors within the Health Sciences Center. See id., Ex. B at .37. The groups used evaluation sheets to score the candidates, which asked them to score the candidates' knowledge, experience, presentation, and suitability on a scale from zero to five. See id., Ex. B at Ex. 103. Of the three finalists, DiGrazia scored an aggregate of 142.5 in knowledge, 143.75 in experience, 141.25 in presentation, and a 137.75 in suitability. Williams scored an aggregate of 129 in knowledge, 136.5 in experience, 120 in presentation, and 106.5 in suitability.Austin scored 102.5 in knowledge, 99 in experience, 90.5 in presentation, and 70 in suitability. Thus, DiGrazia scored the highest in all four categories.
After the interviews, the selection committee first eliminated Austin from consideration because the committee was not convinced that she was serious about relocating to Shreveport. See id., Ex. B at 42. Next, the committee reviewed the group evaluation scores and discussed their personal experiences with DiGrazia and Williams. Ultimately, the committee unanimously selected DiGrazia for the CNO position. See id., Ex. A at 60-64; Ex. B at 48; Ex. G at 43-44. Although each committee member found Williams qualified for the position, they found DiGrazia to be the best choice for the position because of her recent experience in the CNO position, her overall background in inpatient care, as well as DiGrazia's preferable management style and personality traits. See id.
Before DiGrazia retired on August 31, 2012, she recommended Jackie Robinson ("Robinson"), an African American, be appointed interim CNO. See Record Document 50, Ex. F at 6. Her recommendation was accepted and Robinson currently serves as interim CNO. See id., Williams continues to work at the Health Sciences Center as Assistant Administrator in the Ambulatory Care Division. See Record Document 57, Ex. A-1 at 1.
On June 10, 2008, Williams filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against LSU, alleging that LSU unlawfully failed to promote her and denied her a pay increase because of her race. Miciotto was not named as a defendant in Williams's EEOC charge. See Record Document 50, Ex. J at 7. On July 7, 2010, Williams amended the charge to include a claim of retaliation. See Record Document 50, Ex. J at 13-14.
The EEOC took no action other than to issue a right to sue letter, which it issued Williams on August 6, 2010. See id., Ex. J at 17. On November 1, 2010, Williams filed suit in this court against LSU and Miciotto, alleging failure to promote, unequal rate of pay, retaliation, and hostile work environment pursuant to pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, respectively. See Record Documents 1, 7, 18, and 33. Miciotto moved to dismiss Williams's claims against him pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Record Document 22. Magistrate Judge Hornsby filed a report and recommendation in which he recommended that Williams's hostile work environment claims be dismissed and ordered Williams to plead additional facts as to her retaliation claim. See Record Document 29. No objections to the magistrate's recommendations were filed, and this court enteredan order in accordance with the magistrate's recommendations, dismissing Williams's hostile work environment claims. See Record Document 34.
On April 26, 2013, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all of Williams's claims. See Record Document 50. Williams opposed the motion. See Record Document 57. The defendants replied and also filed a motion to strike several exhibits submitted by Williams in opposition to the their summary judgment motion. See Record Documents 63 and 67.
Summary judgment is proper pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Quality Infusion Care. Inc. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 628 F.3d 725, 728 (5th Cir. 2010). "Rule 56[(a)] 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 parly's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Patrick v. Ridge, 394 F.3d 311, 315 (5th Cir. 2004). If the movant demonstrates the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, "the nonmovant must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific factsshowing that there is a genuine [dispute] for trial." Gen. Universal Sys., Inc. v. Lee, 379 F.3d 131, 141 (5th Cir. 2004). Where critical evidence is so weak or tenuous on an essential fact that it could not support a judgment in favor of the nonmovant, then summary judgment should be granted. See Boudreaux v. Swift Transp. Co., 402 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 2005). The Fifth Circuit has cautioned that "conclusory allegations, speculation, and unsubstantiated assertions are inadequate to satisfy" the nonmovant's burden in a motion for summary judgment. Ramsey v. Henderson, 286 F.3d 264, 269 (5th Cir. 2002).
Williams asserts that LSU and Miciotto failed to promote her to the CNO position because of her race in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, respectively.2 See Record Documents 1, 7, 18 and 33. Miciotto argues that Williams's failure to promote claim against him have prescribed under Louisiana's one-year prescriptive period, that Miciotto is entitled to qualified immunity, and that Williams's claims otherwise lack merit. Before analyzing the merits of Williams's claims against both defendants, the court will first address thetimeliness of Williams's claim against Miciotto.
Section 1981 does not contain a statute of limitations. See Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369, 371, 124 S. Ct. 1836, 1839 (2004). When a federal statute does not contain a statute of limitations, courts should apply "the most appropriate or analogous state statute of limitations." Id. Under Louisiana law, "[a] section 1981 claim is best characterized as a tort . . . and is, therefore, governed by the one-year prescriptive period for delictual actions dictated by [Louisiana Civil Code article] 3492." Taylor v. Bunge Corp., 775 F.2d 617, 618 (5th Cir. 1985). However, for actions arising under federal statutes enacted after December 1, 1990, courts must apply a catchall four-year statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1658 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial