Willis v. Cleveland Cnty.
| Decision Date | 01 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL CASE NO. 1:18-cv-00292-MR-WCM |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
| Parties | SARA E. WILLIS, Plaintiff, v. CLEVELAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, sub nom. CLEVELAND COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT/ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES DIVISION; BRIAN EPLEY, in his official capacity as the Manager of Cleveland County; DOROTHEA WYANT, individually and in her official capacity as "Health Director" of the Cleveland County Health Department; SAM LOCKRIDGE, individually and in his official capacity as the former Cleveland County General Services Director and Supervisor of the Cleveland County Animal Control Division, Defendants. |
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the County Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. 45].
On October 17, 2018, Sara E. Willis (the "Plaintiff") filed a Complaint against Cleveland County (the "County"), Brian Epley ("Epley"), Dorothea Wyant ("Wyant"), and Sam Lockridge ("Lockridge"), asserting several claims for violations of her civil rights. [Doc. 1 at 21-54]. Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"); 29 U.S.C. § 206 ("Equal Pay Act"); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 ("Section 1983" and "Section 1985"); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.1 et seq. (the "North Carolina Wage and Hour Act"); common law claims for negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, loss of consortium; claims for punitive damages; and a request for declaratory relief. [Id.]. The Plaintiff's husband, Brian Willis, also asserted claims. [Id.]. Mr. Willis, however, voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice in August 2019 and is therefore no longer a party to this case. [Doc. 26].
On January 7, 2019, the County Defendants filed their Answer, asserting several affirmative defenses. [Doc. 15].1 On January 28, 2020, the County Defendants moved for summary judgment on the Plaintiff'sclaims. [Doc. 45]. The Plaintiff responded to the County Defendants' motion on February 27, 2020 [Doc. 61].2 The County Defendants have replied. [Doc. 63].3
Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "As the Supreme Court has observed, 'this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.'" Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 519 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986)).
A genuine issue of fact exists if a reasonable jury considering the evidence could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 798 (4th Cir. 1994). "Regardless of whether he may ultimately be responsible for proof and persuasion, the party seeking summary judgment bears an initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 522. If this showing is made, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party who must convince the Court that a triable issue does exist. Id.
In considering the facts on a motion for summary judgment, the Court will view the pleadings and material presented in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-88 (1986).
During the period relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Epley served as the Manager of Cleveland County, Defendant Wyant served as the Health Director of the Cleveland County Health Department, and Defendant Lockridge was employed as the Cleveland County General Services Directorand Supervisor of the Cleveland County Control Services Department. [Doc. 61-27: Deposition of Plaintiff Sara Willis ("Pl. First Dep.") at 37, 143-45, 220]. Defendant Lockridge reported to Defendant Wyant, who reported to Defendant Epley, who reported to the Cleveland County Commissioners. [Doc. 65: Def.'s Am. Answer at 10].
Defendant Lockridge worked for Cleveland County from 1990 to 2017. [Doc. 61-5: Deposition of Defendant Lockridge ("Lockridge Dep.") at 185]. He started as a recycling coordinator in the Solid Waste Department in 1990. [Id. at 32-35; Doc. 61-6]. In 1994, the Cleveland County Health Director issued a "final written warning" to Defendant Lockridge after he failed to follow a direct order prohibiting him from contacting a female subordinate who had asked to be transferred from under his supervision. [Doc. 61-23].
In 1995, Defendant Lockridge was promoted to supervise the Cleveland County Animal Control Department and the Cleveland County Solid Waste Department. [Doc. 61-5: Lockridge Dep. at 38-44]. In those positions, Defendant Lockridge had the power to hire employees. [Id. at 164-65].
On May 1, 2016, Defendant Lockridge hired the Plaintiff to work at the Cleveland County Animal Control Division's animal shelter as a "Labor Crew Leader - Euthanasia Tech." [Doc. 61-27: Pl. First Dep. at 26, 149]. ThePlaintiff 's husband was also employed by Cleveland County and supervised by Defendant Lockridge during that time. [Doc. 61-28: Second Deposition of Plaintiff Sara Willis ("Pl. Second Dep.") at 81, 225]. Shortly after the Plaintiff was hired, Defendant Lockridge slapped her on the buttocks while the two were leaving a meeting in his office. [Doc. 61-27: Pl. First Dep. at 91, 105-06; Doc. 61-28: Pl. Second Dep. at 219;]. The Plaintiff turned around, saw Defendant Lockridge smiling at her, and walked out of his office. [Doc. 61-27: Pl. First Dep. at 123; Doc. 61-20 at 2].
A few months later, in December 2016, Defendant Lockridge called the Plaintiff to his office to discuss her applying for a promotion to "community cat diversion coordinator." [Doc. 61-27: Pl. First Dep. at 124-25]. While the promotion would have entailed a pay raise for the Plaintiff, she first would have taken a slight pay cut because she would have to pay taxes on the county vehicle that she would receive. [Id. at 195-96]. During the meeting to discuss the promotion, Defendant Lockridge told the Plaintiff that he wanted her to take the position and promised to give her the position if she applied. [Id. at 124-25, 192-93]. The Plaintiff filled out the application for the position during that meeting. [Id. at 124-25]. After the paperwork was done, Defendant Lockridge reached over to the Plaintiff and touched her inner thigh with his hand. [Id.]. The Plaintiff immediately moved away from DefendantLockridge and left his office. [Id.]. The Plaintiff never received the promotion to the community cat diversion coordinator position or an explanation for why she did not get the promotion. [Id. at 192].
During the course of the Plaintiff's employment, Defendant Lockridge tried to kiss the Plaintiff on the face or mouth approximately 20 times. [Id. at 90, 122]. The Plaintiff always avoided Defendant Lockridge's kisses by turning her head. [Id. at 122]. Defendant Lockridge also hugged the Plaintiff, touched the Plaintiff inappropriately, and made inappropriate remarks to the Plaintiff on several occasions. [Id. at 88; Doc. 61-4: Affidavit of Zac Lovelace ("Lovelace Aff.") at ¶ 8]. The Plaintiff abruptly left several meetings after Defendant Lockridge made inappropriate comments to her. [Id.].
Zac Lovelace ("Lovelace") worked as an enforcement officer in the Animal Control Department from 2011 to 2017. [Doc. 61-4: Lovelace Aff. at ¶ 2]. Lovelace was one of the Plaintiff's supervisors and was supervised by Defendant Lockridge. [Id. at ¶¶ 3-5]. Lovelace states that he "personally observed Mr. Lockridge act inappropriately towards Mrs. Willis through his words and his conduct." [Id. at ¶ 7]. Specifically, Lovelace remembers "three or four occasions when Sam Lockridge made inappropriate remarks to Mrs. Willis of a personal nature regarding her sex (female); he would hug her, kiss her on the cheek, rub her backside as he let his hand fall down the small ofher back onto her rear-end." [Id. at ¶¶ 8, 10]. Lovelace states that the Plaintiff would "attempt to avoid such physical contact by moving away from Sam Lockridge or turning her head to the side when he went to kiss her." [Id.].
Other employees witnessed Defendant Lockridge engaging in similar conduct. Patti Bracken ("Bracken") worked as a rescue coordinator at the Animal Control Department and under Defendant Lockridge's supervision from 2015 to 2017. [Doc. 61-1: Deposition of Patti Bracken ("Bracken Dep.") at ¶ 5]. In 2016, Bracken states that Defendant Lockridge stroked her arm when she showed him a piece of paper during a meeting in his office. [Id. at ¶ 24]. Bracken states that Defendant Lockridge "must have noticed my repulsion and asked if that was 'OK,' and [she] immediately said, 'No it's not,' and sat back down." [Id.]. Bracken states that the way he touched her was "highly inappropriate" and that she "immediately made it clear to him (by my reaction and my words) that as a subordinate female employee, such behavior was not acceptable." [Id.]. Bracken further states that after she "rebuffed his physical attentions," Defendant Lockridge "immediately began to 'grill'" her about her work, berated her "to the point of tears" and told her to "just get over" her mother's death. [Id. at ¶ 25]. Bracken states that "it isclear that Sam Lockridge's berating me . . . was the direct result of my having rebuffed his personal attentions and physical contact." [Id.].
Bracken further states that "many times at employee lunches, Sam Lockridge would come up behind younger female employees and begin to rub their backs" and that she ...
To continue reading
Request your trial