Winful v. Med. Univ. of S.C.

• Decision Date: 28 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2:13-cv-02150-DCN,2:13-cv-02150-DCN
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: TERESA WINFUL, Plaintiff, v. THE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; GEORGE OHLANDT; and CECILE KAMATH, in Their official capacities, Defendants.

TERESA WINFUL, Plaintiff, v. THE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; GEORGE OHLANDT;and CECILE KAMATH, in Their official capacities, Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-02150-DCN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

September 28, 2015

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that this court grant in part and deny in part defendants The Medical University of South Carolina ("MUSC"), George Ohlandt ("Ohlandt"), and Cecile Kamath's ("Kamath") (collectively "defendants") summary judgment motion. Specifically, the magistrate judge recommends that this court grant defendants' summary judgment motion as to plaintiff Teresa Winful's ("Winful") Title VII claims for race and gender discrimination and deny defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Winful's retaliation claim. For the reasons set for the below, the court adopts the R&R in part and rejects the R&R in part and grants summary judgment as to all of Winful's claims.

I. BACKGROUND

MUSC hired Winful, an African-American female, in December 2006 as an Information Resources Consultant I in the Office of Financial Aid. Compl. ¶ 9. Winful was hired by her then supervisor, Pearl Givens ("Givens"), and her duties includedgeneral information technology and computer related tasks. Defs.' Mot. Ex. 18, Ohlandt's Depo. 19:19-20:19. At that time, Winful began working with William Vandiver ("Vandiver"), a white male, so that she could take over his job responsibilities when he retired. Defs.' Mot. Ex. 17, Winful Depo. 62:22-63:1.

MUSC hired defendant Ohlandt as the Executive Director of Enrollment Management in 2008. Ohlandt Depo. 9-15. Ohlandt previously served on the interview committee that recommended MUSC hire Winful in 2006, along with Vandiver and Givens. Id. at 29:15-30:15. In August 2008, one month after Ohlandt began his new position, Givens resigned, and Ohlandt became Winful's supervisor. In 2009, MUSC hired defendant Kamath as Director of Financial Aid. Kamath became Winful's direct supervisor and was supervised by Ohlandt. Dr. Darlene Shaw ("Shaw") was and is the Associate Provost for Educational Affairs and Student Life. Id. at 25:1-28:19. Shaw supervised the Office of Financial Aid at all times relevant to this case and directly supervised Ohlandt.

On February 18, 2011, Winful submitted her Employment Inquiry Questionnaire to the South Carolina Human Affairs Commission ("SCHAC") and on May 9, 2011, filed her Charge of Discrimination ("Charge") with the SCHAC. Defs.' Mot. Ex. 3; Ex. 4. SCHAC issued its Dismissal and Right to Sue letter on April 24, 2013. Def.'s Mot. Ex. 16. The letter sent to Winful enclosing the Right to Sue letter was dated May 1, 2013. Id.

Winful alleges that since 2008, defendants have subjected her to disparate treatment compared to her similarly situated white and Asian male counterparts by denying her promotions, raises, and other financial benefits in violation of Title VII.Compl. ¶ 19. She also alleges that defendants subjected her to "disparate and worse working conditions and more difficult schedules than" similarly situated white and/or Asian male counterparts. Id. Winful further alleges that defendants retaliated against her for making discrimination complaints. Id. ¶ 36. As a result, Winful alleges that she has suffered a loss of earnings, loss of prospective earnings and benefits, embarrassment, humiliation and mental anguish, personal injury, and mental suffering. Id. ¶ 20. Winful seeks an award of actual and punitive damages.

Winful filed the present action against MUSC, Ohlandt, and Kamath on August 8, 2013, bringing the following claims: (1) race discrimination in violation of Title VII; (2) gender discrimination in violation of Title VII; (3) age discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADEA"); (4) discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (5) civil conspiracy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985; and (6) retaliation in violation of Title VII. Winful filed a stipulation of dismissal on July 9, 2014, voluntarily dismissing her third, fourth, and fifth causes of action under the ADEA, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 respectively. Therefore, Winful's only remaining causes of action are her first, second, and sixth causes of action for race discrimination, gender discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Title VII.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on September 30, 2014. Winful filed a response in opposition to defendants' motion on November 21, 2014. On December 18, 2014, defendants filed a reply. The magistrate judge issued an R&R on August 5, 2015. Winful and the defendants filed timely objections to the R&R on August 24, 2015. Defendants filed a response to Winful's objections on September 11, 2015.The motion for summary judgment has been fully briefed and is now ripe for the court's review.

II. STANDARDS

This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's R&R to which specific, written objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party's failure to object is accepted as agreement with the conclusions of the magistrate judge. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). In absence of a timely filed objection to a magistrate judge's R&R, this court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must "only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). The recommendation of the magistrate judge carries no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination rests with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court may adopt the portions of the R&R to which the plaintiff did not object, as a party's failure to object is accepted as agreement with the conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149-50. This court may accept, reject, or modify the report of the magistrate judge, in whole or in part, or may recommit the matter to him with instructions for further consideration. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Summary judgment shall be granted if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment."Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). "[S]ummary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is 'genuine,' that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. At the summary judgment stage, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. Id. at 255.

III. DISCUSSION

Winful's claims center around the following five complaints of actions allegedly taken by defendants because of her race, gender, and in retaliation for her opposition to MUSC's alleged unlawful employment practices: (1) defendants denied Winful a raise; (2) defendants demoted Winful on or about August 31, 2010; (3) defendants failed to promote Winful in December 2010; (4) defendants involuntary transferred Winful to a new position in a new department on April 25, 2013; and (5) defendants engaged in other various forms of disparate treatment.¹

A. Denial of Raise - Discrimination and Retaliation

Winful alleges that Givens promised her a raise in 2007 but that Ohlandt refused to honor Givens's promise in 2008 because of budgetary restrictions. The magistrate judge found Winful procedurally barred from pursuing her denial of raise claim because she failed to include the claim in her Charge with the SCHAC. R&R 13; Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 7. Winful did not object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

An individual alleging discrimination under Title VII must first file an administrative charge with the EEOC. The scope of the individual's claims are then limited by the date on which the charge was filed and the contents of the charge. See Dennis v. Cty. of Fairfax, 55 F.3d 151, 156 (4th Cir. 1995) ("Where, as here, the claims raised under Title VII exceed the scope of the EEOC charge and any charges that would naturally have arisen from an investigation thereof, they are procedurally barred."). Winful failed to include her denial of raise claim in her charge. Therefore, the magistrate judge properly determined that Winful is procedurally barred from pursuing the claim in this action.

B. Demotion - Discrimination and Retaliation

In her first and second causes of action, Winful alleges that on August 31, 2010, defendants demoted her because of her race and gender and in retaliation for her prior complaints. The magistrate judge found that Winful failed to provide sufficient evidence that defendants unlawfully discriminated or retaliated against her because of her gender or race by changing her job duties and failed to establish a prima facie case of race or gender discrimination. R&R 13-24. Winful did not object to this portion of the R&R. After reviewing the record for clear error and finding none, the court adopts the R&R as it pertains to Winful's discrimination and retaliation claims relating to her August 31, 2010 change in job duties.

C. Failure to Promote - Discrimination

Winful alleges that defendants failed to promote her to Information Resources Consultant II in November 2010 because of her race and gender. The magistrate judge recommended that the court find that Winful failed to establish sufficient direct orcircumstantial evidence to show discriminatory animus or satisfy the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). R&R 25-28. Because Winful did not...