Opinion
Case No. 2:98CV208-EMB.
Filed Date: January 13, 2000.
OPINION
Defendants have moved for summary judgment or, alternatively, for partial summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence to support her claims of sexual harassment in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, et seq.
Plaintiff responds that numerous issues are in dispute, thereby precluding summary judgment, except that she concedes that the Title VII claims against defendant Gary Munday should be dismissed.
The parties in the above entitled action have consented to trial and entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 73.1, with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
FACTS
Plaintiff began her employment with the Grand Casino on June 8, 1996, as a security officer under the supervision of Gary Munday, the day shift security manager. Plaintiff claims that Munday repeatedly engaged in lewd, sexual conversations in plaintiff's presence, asked plaintiff for oral sex, teased her in a sexual manner, and otherwise behaved in an inappropriate and offensive manner with plaintiff and other female co-workers. Plaintiff claims that she told management about Munday's behavior in February 1997, but it was not until November 1997, after plaintiff had filed an EEOC claim, that Munday was investigated and terminated. After his termination, plaintiff claims that he was allowed on the casino property where he continued to harass her, and he was eventually rehired in management. Plaintiff contends that eventually the environment at work became so hostile that she quit in December 1998.
TITLE VII CLAIMS AGAINST GARY MUNDAY
Clearly, plaintiff may not maintain a cause of action under Title VII against her co-worker, Gary Munday. Dandridge v. Chromcraft, Corp., 914 F. Supp. 1396 (N.D.Miss. 1996). However, the court finds that plaintiff has stated sufficient facts to support a state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against Munday, and this claim shall go forward to trial.
TITLE VII QUID PRO QUO CLAIM
To support a claim of quid pro quo harassment, the plaintiff must show that she was subjected to harassment by a supervisor, and that she suffered "an adverse, tangible employment action" as a result of refusing to submit to the supervisor's sexual demands. Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998). The court finds that plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence to support a showing of an "adverse, tangible employment action" taken against her during the time period of the alleged harassment, and therefore, her Title VII claim of quid pro quo harassment should be dismissed. Plaintiff received numerous raises during her employment and was approved for several transfers, although for various reasons she declined them. Her allegations that she was written up for taking off work while she was sick, and that other employees called her names and mistreated her, do not rise to the level of "a significant change in employment status," as defined in Burlington, supra.
As for the remainder of plaintiff's claims, while the court finds that some facts are not in great dispute, the conclusions to be drawn from those facts are, and it would be the better course to proceed to trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ("Neither do we suggest . . . that the trial court may not deny summary judgment in a case where there is reason to believe that the better course would be to proceed to a full trial.").
A separate order in accordance with this opinion shall issue this same date.
ORDER
In accordance with an opinion entered this day, the parties in the above entitled action having consented to trial and entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
That Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in the alternative, to the extent that all of plaintiff's Title VII claims against Gary Munday and plaintiff's Title VII claims of quid pro quo harassment be, and are hereby, dismissed with prejudice. In all other respects, the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
All memoranda, depositions, affidavits and other matters considered by the court in ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment are hereby incorporated and made a part of the record in this cause.
SO ORDERED, this, the 11th day of January, 2000.
EUGENE M. BOGEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE