Janice Sturdivant v. The City of Atlanta , 596 F. App'x 825 ( 2015 )

Case: 14-11791 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 1 of 13
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-11791
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-02310-RLV
JANICE STURDIVANT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE CITY OF ATLANTA,
CHIEF GEORGE TURNER,
in his individual capacity,
SGT. JOHN LUDWIG,
Defendants-Appellees,
MAYOR KASIM REED,
in his individual capacity, et al.,
Defendants.
Case: 14-11791 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 2 of 13
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(January 6, 2015)
Before HULL, MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Janice Sturdivant appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of the City of Atlanta (“the City”) and Atlanta Police Chief
George Turner, in his individual capacity, on her employment discrimination
claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After review, we affirm.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Claims on Appeal
In the district court, Sturdivant voluntarily dismissed her race discrimination
claims, all of her claims against Mayor Kasim Reed and City Council President
Caesar Mitchell, her Title VII claims against Police Chief Turner and Sergeant
John Ludwig, and her § 1983 claims against Sergeant Ludwig and against Chief
Turner in his official capacity. In addition, on appeal, Sturdivant does not
challenge the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the City of
Atlanta on her Title VII disparate treatment gender discrimination claim or the
district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her
state law claims against Sergeant Ludwig and to dismiss those state law claims
2
Case: 14-11791 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 3 of 13
without prejudice. Thus, these claims are abandoned. See Carmichael v. Kellogg,
Brown & Root Serv., Inc., 572 F.3d 1271, 1293 (11th Cir. 2009).
As a result, the only claims on appeal are Sturdivant’s Title VII hostile work
environment sexual harassment claim against the City of Atlanta and her § 1983
gender-based equal protection claim against the City of Atlanta and Chief Turner
in his individual capacity.
B. Text Messages to Sturdivant
Sturdivant works for the Atlanta Police Department’s (“APD”) human
resources department as the Assistant Commander of Human Resources and holds
the rank of sergeant. Sturdivant’s duties include overseeing payroll, drug
screening, and the grievance procedure, and also acting as the EEOC liaison
between APD and the City’s human resources department.
Sometime in 2009, another APD officer, Sergeant Ludwig, began to send
text messages to Sturdivant’s city-issued cell phone that commented on her
physical appearance and asked about her private life. Sturdivant did not work or
socialize with Sergeant Ludwig and had met him only a couple of times through
work. Ludwig sent Sturdivant these text messages intermittently, every three to
four months, until June 2010. Sturdivant responded to Ludwig that he was being
disrespectful, but did not report his text messages to her superiors.
3
Case: 14-11791 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 4 of 13
On June 9, 2010, Ludwig sent Sturdivant a series of text messages
commenting on her body, which she ignored. Later that evening, Ludwig sent her
a photograph of his erect penis, stating, “[T]his is what happens to me when I’m
thinking about you.” Sturdivant told Ludwig he had crossed the line and that she
would report him to the Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”).
C. Sturdivant’s First Complaint
The next morning, June 10, 2010, Sturdivant reported Ludwig’s text to her
work supervisor and another superior officer, who immediately called OPS. Two
days after receiving the photograph, on June 11, 2010, Sturdivant went to OPS and
filed a formal complaint. Ten minutes after giving her statement to OPS,
Sturdivant received a text message from Ludwig stating he “really blew it this
time” and indicating he knew she had made the complaint against him. Sturdivant
complained to OPS that her complaint had not been kept confidential.
D. Text Messages Stop After Complaint
A few days after Sturdivant’s OPS complaint, OPS interviewed Ludwig.
OPS told Ludwig to have no further contact with Sturdivant. Sturdivant admits
that she has received no further texts from Ludwig.
After filing her OPS complaint, Sturdivant did see Ludwig three or four
times in the police headquarters building where she worked, but Ludwig never
approached her or spoke to her. About a week after Sturdivant’s OPS complaint,
4
Case: 14-11791 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 5 of 13
at a staff meeting, Ludwig laughed and smirked at Sturdivant, but did not say
anything to her. On another occasion about two weeks after her OPS complaint,
Sturdivant saw Ludwig standing in the hallway outside her office talking to his
superior officer.
E. Formal Investigation and Discipline
A few weeks after filing her OPS complaint, Sturdivant learned that OPS
had not yet begun a formal investigation and had not retrieved and preserved the
text messages and the photograph on her cell phone, even though OPS is supposed
to investigate sexual harassment complaints immediately. Sturdivant told OPS that
if it did not start the formal investigation by assigning her case a control number,
she would call an attorney.
OPS started the formal investigation on July 1, 2010, about three weeks after
her OPS complaint was filed. During the interim, there were no further text
messages from Ludwig. Because she felt OPS was not taking her complaint
seriously, Sturdivant called Deputy Chief Shawn Jones. Deputy Chief Jones called
OPS to inquire about Sturdivant’s complaint, and OPS told him that “it’s just
[Sturdivant], she’ll get over it.”
During the OPS investigation, Ludwig did not deny sending Sturdivant the
texts and photograph. In January 2011, disciplinary proceedings against Ludwig
began, but then were postponed so that OPS could interview additional witnesses.
5
Case: 14-11791 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 6 of 13
Disciplinary proceedings concluded in late March 2011, and Ludwig was found
guilty of failing to follow directives, namely, the City’s sexual harassment policy.
On April 7, 2011, almost ten months after Sturdivant filed her OPS complaint,
Ludwig was suspended for ten days and restricted from accessing the headquarters
building where Sturdivant worked without prior approval. Ludwig’s discipline
was in accordance with the City’s sexual harassment policy, which called for
disciplinary action ranging from a ten-day suspension to dismissal for an
employee’s first offense.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Title VII Claim of Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment
The district court did not err in concluding that Sturdivant’s Title VII hostile
work environment claim was time-barred. Sturdivant did not file her EEOC charge
until April 19, 2011, more than 180 days after Ludwig’s June 2010 laughing and
smirking at Sturdivant, the last acts that could arguably be said to have contributed
to the alleged hostile work environment. See Wilkerson v. Grinnell Corp., 270
F.3d 1314, 1317 (11th Cir. 2001); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) (requiring an
employee in a non-deferral state such as Georgia to exhaust administrative
remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of
the alleged unlawful employment practice); Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v Morgan,
536 U.S. 101, 116-17, 122 S. Ct. 2061, 2074 (2002) (concluding that for hostile
6
Case: 14-11791 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 7 of 13
work environment claims, which involve the cumulative effect of many separate
acts, the charge is timely if “an act contributing to the claim occurs within the
filing period”).
Sturdivant contends that her EEOC charge was timely because the APD’s
delayed and inept handling of her OPS complaint up to April 2011 were acts
contributing to the hostile work environment. The district court properly rejected
this argument based on McCann v. Tillman, 526 F.3d 1370 (11th Cir. 2008), in
which this Court concluded that claims that “complaints of discrimination were
subject to retaliation and not investigated” could not “be brought under a hostile
work environment claim that centers on ‘discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and
insult,’” but rather “must be challenged as separate statutory discrimination and
retaliation claims.” McCann, 526 F.3d at 1378-79 (quoting in part Morgan, 536
U.S. at 116, 122 S. Ct. at 2074).
In any event, assuming the EEOC charge was timely, summary judgment on
the merits was appropriate because Sturdivant failed to establish a prima facie
hostile work environment claim. 1 To establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff
must show, among other things, that the employer is responsible for the hostile
1
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Rioux v. City of Atlanta,
Ga., 520 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
7
Case: 14-11791 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 8 of 13
work environment “under either a theory of vicarious or of direct liability.”
McCann, 526 F.3d at 1378 (quotation marks omitted). Where, as here, the harasser
is a coworker, rather than a supervisor, the employer is responsible for the conduct
only “if it knew or should have known of the harassing conduct but failed to take
prompt remedial action.” Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269, 1278
(11th Cir. 2002).
It is undisputed that Sturdivant’s supervisors at APD knew nothing of
Ludwig’s behavior until Sturdivant reported it on June 10, 2010, at which point
they referred Sturdivant to OPS to file a formal complaint. Further, once
Sturdivant reported Ludwig’s text messages to OPS, OPS told Ludwig to have no
further communication with Sturdivant, and Ludwig complied. Ludwig was
disciplined according to the City’s sexual harassment policy. Ludwig also was
instructed not to go in the building where Sturdivant worked without prior
authorization. Most importantly, Ludwig admitted sending the text messages, and
the text messages stopped immediately after her formal complaint.
Sturdivant stresses that the City’s investigation and disciplinary proceedings
took about ten months to complete and contends that OPS deliberately dragged out
the investigation and disciplinary proceedings and intentionally failed to preserve
Ludwig’s text messages. Sturdivant did not produce any evidence to support her
contention, however. Further, APD officials involved in the OPS investigation
8
Case: 14-11791 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 9 of 13
testified that attempts were made as early as June 14, 2010, to obtain Ludwig’s text
messages from Verizon once OPS realized Sturdivant’s cell phone had
automatically deleted them and that the disciplinary proceedings were suspended
while OPS conducted interviews of additional witnesses who could support
Sturdivant’s complaint. Given these undisputed facts, no reasonable jury could
conclude that the City was responsible for Ludwig’s conduct.
B Section 1983 Equal Protection Claim
The district court also did not err in granting summary judgment to the City
and Chief Turner on Sturdivant’s gender-based equal protection claim. 2 The
gravamen of Sturdivant’s equal protection claim is that the City and Chief Turner
were deliberately indifferent to a practice at APD of discouraging female
employees from filing formal sexual harassment complaints and failing to
promptly investigate and resolve female employees’ sexual harassment complaints.
As there is no respondeat superior theory of liability under § 1983, to hold
an individual supervisor liable, the plaintiff must show either that the supervisor
personally participated in the constitutional deprivation or that there was a causal
connection between the supervisor’s actions and the constitutional deprivation.
Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961, 978 (11th Cir. 2008). Sturdivant does not
2
Because the factual basis for Sturdivant’s § 1983 equal protection claim is the same as
her Title VII hostile work environment claim, the elements of her § 1983 claim mirror the
elements of her Title VII claim. See Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961, 970 (11th Cir. 2008);
Stallworth v. Shuler, 777 F.2d 1431, 1433 (11th Cir. 1985).
9
Case: 14-11791 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 10 of 13
contend Chief Turner personally participated in the deprivation of her
constitutional rights, but tries to show a causal connection between Chief Turner’s
actions (or inactions) and the alleged constitutional deprivation. To demonstrate
the requisite causal connection, the plaintiff must show a “history of widespread
abuse” that would put the supervisor “on notice of the need to correct the alleged
deprivation.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). “[I]solated occurrences” are
insufficient; rather, the plaintiff must show widespread abuse that is “obvious
flagrant, rampant, and of continued duration.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
Similarly, to hold a municipality liable, the plaintiff must show that the
deprivation of rights was caused by a custom or policy of the municipality. Monell
v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2036 (1978). A
“custom” is a practice “so widespread as to have the force of law.” Bd of Cnty.
Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404, 117 S. Ct. 1382, 1388
(1997). Further, the plaintiff must show that the municipal action was taken with
“deliberate indifference to its known or obvious consequences.” Davis v. DeKalb
Cnty. Sch. Dist., 233 F.3d 1367, 1375-76 (11th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks
omitted).
Here, it is undisputed that the City had a sexual harassment policy, that APD
provided Ludwig with sexual harassment training, and that APD had not received
any prior sexual harassment complaints involving Ludwig. Moreover, as soon as
10
Case: 14-11791 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 11 of 13
Sturdivant reported Ludwig’s text messages, her superiors contacted OPS and told
Sturdivant to file a formal complaint. After the OPS investigation, Ludwig was
suspended for ten days, in accordance with the City’s sexual harassment policy.
As already noted, while the investigation and disciplinary process took about ten
months, Sturdivant did not present any evidence that these delays were deliberate
or based on her gender.
Additionally, Sturdivant did not provide any evidentiary support for her
claim that there was a custom or practice at APD of encouraging female officers to
resolve sexual harassment complaints informally and of dragging out
investigations of female officers’ formal sexual harassment complaints, while
promptly resolving those of male officers. Sturdivant’s conclusory assertions in
her declaration that such a custom or practice existed and that Chief Turner knew
of it are not facts simply because Sturdivant avers that they are based on her “29
years with APD.” Sturdivant’s declaration did not provide any supporting facts
from which a jury could reasonably conclude that the purported custom or practice
was so widespread and obvious that the City and Chief Turner could be said to be
on notice of it. See Evers v. Gen. Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir.
1985) (“This court has consistently held that conclusory allegations without
specific supporting facts have no probative value.”).
11
Case: 14-11791 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 12 of 13
Sturdivant argues, without explanation, that her duties as the EEOC liaison
gave her personal knowledge of these matters, but her declaration does not make
this claim and the record does not support it. In fact, in her deposition, Sturdivant
testified that her duties did not involve sexual harassment complaints, which are
handled exclusively by OPS, a department in which she has never worked.
Indeed, Sturdivant further testified that, as a supervisor, she received only
one complaint of sexual harassment from a direct report, a female officer named
Cassandra Pruitt, and that Sturdivant and Deputy Chief Shawn Jones (a male)
together contacted OPS and then transported Pruitt to OPS to file a formal
complaint. On another occasion, Sturdivant gave a statement in an OPS
investigation into a sexual harassment complaint filed by a female recruit at the
police academy. In other words, as to Sturdivant’s only personal experiences with
other female officers’ sexual harassment complaints, Sturdivant did not claim the
female officers were discouraged from filing a formal complaint or that their
complaints were not properly investigated. On this record, Sturdivant’s conclusory
statements about a custom or practice in handling male and female officers’ sexual
harassment complaints and Chief Turner’s awareness of it do not appear to be
based on Sturdivant’s personal knowledge and carry no probative value.
For all these reasons, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary
judgment to the City and Chief Turner.
12
Case: 14-11791 Date Filed: 01/06/2015 Page: 13 of 13
AFFIRMED.
13