Quantcast
Channel: South Carolina Lawyers Weekly » Insubordination
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 3

Labor & Employment — Civil Rights — Race Discrimination Claim – Only Black Employee – Poor Relationship – Insubordination 

0
0

Morrow v. Carolina Urologic Research Center, LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-191-14, 23 pp.) (R. Bryan Harwell, J.) 4:13-cv-00695; D.S.C.

Holding: Even though plaintiff was the defendant-employer’s only black employee, the employer gave legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for firing plaintiff, i.e. she violated company policy by using her work computer for personal reasons, she interrupted the medical director while he was seeing a patient, she committed acts of insubordination by working unauthorized overtime, she refused to go home on the afternoon of Jan. 26, 2011 after being ordered to leave, and she sent several emails complaining about the defendant-supervisor, calling her a “liar” and “fool.” Plaintiff has not shown that these reasons were a pretext for racial discrimination.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted as to plaintiff’s federal law claims. Her state law claims are remanded to state court.

As direct evidence of racial discrimination, plaintiff asserts that, after her job interview, the employer’s medical director allegedly said, “There’s only one problem. She’s black.” However, the medical director hired plaintiff, plaintiff worked for the employer for three years, and the isolated remark had no bearing on the contested employment decision: plaintiff’s termination. Plaintiff’s assertion that this constitutes direct evidence of discrimination is without merit.

Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence that her supervisor’s behavior was motivated by racial animus. Moreover, the medical director – not the supervisor – made the decision to fire plaintiff.

Although plaintiff asserted that her supervisor – a white employee – was treated more favorably than plaintiff, a supervisor is not “similarly situated” to her subordinate.

While plaintiff argues that all employees used their computers for personal use, she has not made any attempt to show pretext with regard to several of the reasons defendants gave for terminating her. Plaintiff has failed to show that defendants’ legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for firing her were a pretext for discrimination.

The mere fact that plaintiff was the only black employee does not establish that any purported harassment was based on race. Plaintiff has not provided evidence that her supervisor’s purported actions would not have occurred but for plaintiff being black.

Clearly plaintiff and her supervisor did not get along. However, the alleged harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile environment.

Plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case of retaliation. Although plaintiff made general complaints against her supervisor, she never complained of discrimination based on her race. Therefore, plaintiff has not shown that she engaged in protected activity.

The court declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

Motion granted in part; remanded in part.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 3

Latest Images

Trending Articles





Latest Images