VALLES v. FRAZIER

XAVIER RODRIGUEZ, District Judge

On this date, the Court considered the Defendants Jimmy Frazier and Allstar Erosion Control's Motion For Summary Judgment and Brief in Support (Docket Entry No. 15). Plaintiff has not responded. The deadline having passed for Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants' motion, see W.D. Tex. L.R. CV-7(d), and having reviewed the evidence available in the record, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

On June 23, 2008, Plaintiff Cathy Valles filed suit against Defendants Jimmy Frazier ("Frazier") and Allstar Erosion Control ("Allstar") in this Court seeking damages associated with a claim of sexual harassment in the workplace under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) ("Title VII"). Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that Defendants engaged in gender discrimination and sexual harassment resulting in a hostile work environment; thereby, forcing Plaintiff to resign from her position at Allstar Erosion Control. Plaintiff alleges that Frazier repeatedly made lewd comments about her clothing, requests for sexual favors, and other inappropriate sexual advances. (Compl. ¶ 9, Docket Entry No. 1). Plaintiff also contends that these acts were reported to her immediate supervisor, but no action was taken. (Compl. ¶ 10, Docket Entry No. 1). Ultimately, Plaintiff alleges that the workplace was sufficiently inhospitable to require her departure. (Compl. ¶ 11, Docket Entry No. 1) Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations and now move for summary judgment.

Defendants assert that there is no evidence provided by Plaintiff that would evince a genuine issue of material fact. Specifically, Defendants assert that a claim of termination based on gender under Title VII cannot be established, as Plaintiff has not asserted a prima facie case showing Plaintiff was treated or terminated differently than male employees. Defendants argue that there is no evidence in support of the creation of a hostile work environment. Further, Defendants contend that Plaintiff cannot establish a cause of action for quid pro quo harassment, as there is no evidence that Plaintiff was ever asked to succumb to sexual advances either for employment benefits or in fear of punishment. Finally, Defendants stress that since there is no evidence of the necessary discrimination, Plaintiff cannot claim that her voluntary termination of employment was a constructive discharge.

Rendition of summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, 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). The moving party bears the initial burden of "informing the Court of the basis of its motion" and identifying those portions of the record that "it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Adams v. Travelers Indem. Co., 465 F.3d 156, 163 (5th Cir. 2006). Once the moving party has met this burden, it then falls upon the nonmoving party to "go beyond the pleadings" and designate "specific facts" in the record demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id. at 164. When, as here, the plaintiff fails to respond to the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the Court must then determine whether the facts presented by the defendant would appropriately support the entry of summary judgment against the plaintiff. Id.

Plaintiffs Original Complaint is the live pleading. Therein, Plaintiff alleges continuing sexual harassment by the President of the company while in the workplace and that she had reported the instances of harassment to her superiors, who then took no action to remedy the situation. According to Plaintiff, this failure to act led to a hostile work environment which forced her to leave her employment at Allstar.

In order to prevail in an employment discrimination claim under Title VII, the initial burden to prove a prima facie case of discrimination falls upon the plaintiff. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). In general, to satisfy this requirement Plaintiff must demonstrate the following: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she possessed the required qualifications for employment in her position; (3) despite her qualifications, she suffered adverse employment action; and (4) that a member of another class (such as a male) who was similarly situated was treated more favorably. Id. Once Plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden then shifts to Defendant to demonstrate the disputed actions were based upon legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506-07 (1993). Finally, if Defendant produces such reasons, the burden shifts back to Plaintiff to demonstrate that said reasons were merely pretexts for discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804. Further, in order for a claim of a sexually objectionable work environment to be actionable under Title VII, Plaintiff must prove that: (1) the environment was both subjectively and objectively offensive; (2) such that a reasonable person would find to be hostile and/or abusive; and (3) one which Plaintiff did in fact understand to be so. Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787 (1998).

The undisputed facts are that Plaintiff was initially employed by Allstar in November 2006, that Plaintiff received and was aware of Allstar's policies concerning sexual harassment (specifically to report to consecutively more senior members of management if the situation is not resolved), and that she left employment after a disagreement with Defendant Frazier on or about July 23, 2007. It is also undisputed that Plaintiff, as a female, is a member of a protected class, and that the ultimate termination of her employment before the end of her two-weeks notice was brought forth by a disagreement between Plaintiff and Defendant Frazier over a heated visit to Frazier by Plaintiff's husband in which Plaintiff's husband threatened Frazier. Further, Plaintiff's letter of resignation stated her reason for leaving Allstar as "personal reasons" and never mentioned any form of harassment.

Plaintiff contends that she reported the harassing misconduct of Frazier to her immediate supervisor, Michelle Raven, in May 2007 and had on numerous occasions asked Frazier to cease making harassing comments. (Compl. ¶¶ 9-10, Docket Entry No. 1). Plaintiff does not assert that she reported the harassment to anyone else in the company. Defendant has submitted an affidavit by Lorrie Reyes (Michelle Raven's supervisor) stating that she was unaware of any inappropriate comments or advances by Frazier to Plaintiff and that Ms. Reyes had questioned Plaintiff about her resignation letter. (Reyes Aff. ¶ 15, Docket Entry No. 14). Reyes states that Plaintiff never suggested any problem with Frazier. (Id.)

Frazier himself submitted an affidavit in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment. (Frazier Aff., Docket Entry No. 14). In his affidavit, Frazier specifically denies all acts of sexual harassment and impropriety, as well as denying any notification from Plaintiff of her discomfort at Allstar. (Id. ¶¶ 12-18). Frazier did stipulate as to Plaintiff's employment at Allstar, and the dispute between Frazier and Plaintiff's husband that ultimately led to Plaintiff's early termination from Allstar. ( Id. ¶¶ 3-4, 21-22).

Mere subjective belief of Plaintiff as to the existence of discrimination not supported by direct evidence is not sufficient to serve as a basis for judicial relief. Turner v. Claims Admin. Corp., 993 F. Supp. 982, 986 (W.D. Tex. 1998). Further, if the nonmoving party fails to offer proof concerning an essential element of its case, then it "necessarily renders all other facts immaterial and mandates a finding that no genuine issue of fact exists." Adams, at 164.

Plaintiff has not raised any material issues of fact regarding her claims that defendant had created a hostile work environment for Plaintiff or that Plaintiff had been subjected to quid pro quo discrimination. As Plaintiff has presented no evidence other than her subjective belief that the alleged harassment by Frazier occurred, she has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that would defeat a motion for summary judgment. See Turner at 986.

Defendants Jimmy Frazier and Allstar Erosion Control's motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 15) is GRANTED with regard to all of Plaintiff's claims.

It is so ORDERED.