Opinion
Case No. 6:00-cv-184-ORI-22DAB
July 10, 2001
ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Tracy Patricia Gray sues her former employer, Defendant Sverdrup Technology, Inc., for alleged sex discrimination and sexual harassment in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Sverdrup seeks summary judgment on all of Gray's claims. Upon considering the parties' submissions, the Court determines that Sverdrup is entitled to summary judgment.
II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
A motion for summary judgment should be granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). "The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying for the district court those portions of the record `which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.'" Cohen v. United American Bank of Cent. Fla., 83 F.3d 1347, 1349 (11th Cir. 1996) (quoting Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel Carnegie, 17 F.3d x1386, 1396, modified on other grounds, 30 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1110 (1995)). "There is no genuine issue for trial unless the non-moving party establishes, through the record presented to the court, that it is able to prove evidence sufficient for a jury to return a verdict in its favor." Cohen, 83 F.3d at 1349. The Court considers the evidence and all inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Pub. Co., 9 F.3d 913, 918 (11th Cir. 1993), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied, 16 F.3d 1233 (llth Cir. 1994).
III. ANALYSIS
This is one of those summary judgment motions about which extended discussion is unnecessary. In her Complaint (Doc. 1), Gray alleges that she was denied promotion to three assistant AM (area mechanic) positions, and to the position of AM-painter. Sverdrup is entitled to summary judgment on Gray's promotion claim relating to the AM-painter position because Gray did not include that claim in her administrative charge of discrimination. See Doc. 23, Exhibit "C." For the same reason, Gray's sexual harassment claim is barred. Id.
In any event, Gray cannot establish a prima facie case regarding this position because Sverdrup selected a woman to fill it. SeeDoc. 23, ¶ 25, at 6.
In her deposition, Gray identified other alleged acts of discrimination. However, Gray cannot pursue any discrimination claims not listed in her administrative charge. The only claims properly before the Court are those arising from Sverdrup's failure to promote Gray to one of the three assistant AM positions.
Assuming for present purposes the existence of a prima facie case of discrimination relating to Sverdrup's failure to promote Gray to one of the three assistant AM positions, Sverdrup has articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its employment decisions. See Doc. 23, Exhibit "B," ¶¶ 3-19, at 1-5. In response, Gray's counsel offers wholly conclusory arguments regarding pretext; Gray has not presented or identified any evidence supporting those arguments. See Doc. 33 at 7-9. Accordingly, Sverdrup is due summary judgment on Gray's claims.
Sverdrup's well supported motion casts serious doubt on Gray's ability to establish a prima facie case.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant Sverdrup Technology, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23), filed April 3, 2001, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims; it is DENIED insofar as it seeks an award of attorney's fees.
2. The Clerk shall enter a final judgment providing that the Plaintiff; Tracy Patricia Gray, shall take nothing on her claims against the Defendant, Sverdrup Technology, Inc., and that the Defendant shall recover its costs of action.
3. Any other pending motions are moot.
4. The Clerk shall close this case.
DONE and ORDERED