Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

NELSON-COLE v. BORG-WARNER SEC. CORP.

April 6, 1995

PATIENCE NELSON-COLE, Plaintiff,
v.
BORG-WARNER SECURITY CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHARLES R. RICHEY

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 Before the Court are the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff's Opposition, and the Defendants' Reply thereto. Upon careful consideration of the papers, the entire record, and the applicable law, the Court shall grant the Motion, in part, as hereinafter discussed.

 BACKGROUND

 The facts material to this case are not in dispute. *fn1" Defendant Borg-Warner Protective Services Corporation provides security guards and related services at the World Bank under the Burns International Security Services ("Burns") trade name. Defendant Captain Henry Godette has been employed by Burns as a security officer. Plaintiff was hired as a security officer for Burns to work at the World Bank on May 14, 1991.

 From May 14, 1991 until January 1992, Plaintiff worked for Lieutenant Kapoor, and from February 1992 until February 1993, for Lieutenant Woldai. Subsequently, Plaintiff took a maternity leave. Upon returning from maternity leave, Plaintiff was assigned to Captain Henry Godette.

 From March 25, 1993, until August 25, 1993 Plaintiff worked for Captain Godette. After a counselling session with Captain Godette, Plaintiff then became ill and went to the hospital. While on sick leave, Plaintiff presented Major Haynes, a Burns employee, with a written complaint charging Captain Godette with sexual harassment. Major Haynes forwarded the complaint to Abdual Wali, who, along with Sharon Powell investigated Plaintiff's charges. The same day that Plaintiff presented her complaint to Major Haynes, Plaintiff filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC. Mr. Wali and Ms. Powell also investigated the EEOC charge.

 After filing her initial charge of discrimination, Plaintiff filed an amended charge alleging retaliation by coworkers and management personnel. Plaintiff was subsequently transferred to another building to work for Lieutenant Woldai.

 For four months Plaintiff worked for Lieutenant Woldai. During that time, Plaintiff alleges that she had problems with her coworkers regarding her claims. Plaintiff called in sick on February 25, 1994. Mr. Wali contacted Plaintiff to schedule a meeting but Plaintiff declined and submitted a typed resignation on March 12, 1994.

 DISCUSSION

 Summary Judgment shall be rendered upon a showing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986).

 Plaintiff's Complaint alleges various statutory and common law claims that are addressed by the parties in the instant pleadings. At an October 6, 1994 status conference, the Court separated out Plaintiff's common-law claims. Accordingly, the Court shall only address Plaintiff's statutory claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act. Summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's common law claims shall, at this time, be denied, without prejudice to renew after the conclusion of the instant proceedings.

 Specifically, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges four statutory claims: (1) discrimination in the course of her employment in violation of Title VII on account of her sex; (2) retaliatory conduct during the course of her employment in violation of Title VII; (3) discrimination in the termination of her employment in violation of Title VII; and (4) discrimination in the course of her employment in violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.

 Defendants claim that the Title VII claims against Defendant Captain Godette should be dismissed because he is not an "employer" as defined by Title VII. Next, Defendants assert that the Title VII claims against Defendant Borg-Warner should be dismissed because they took "prompt remedial action" upon learning of the discrimination. Third, Defendants allege that the facts do not support Plaintiff's claim of constructive discharge. Fourth, Defendants allege that because they offered the Plaintiff a "substantially equivalent" position, she is not entitled to back-pay. Finally, Defendants claim that the one year time requirement of the D.C. Human Rights Act bars Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Captain Godette.

 For the reasons stated hereafter, the Court shall grant summary judgment for the Defendants solely with respect to the Title VII claim and the D.C. Human Rights claims alleged against Defendant Captain Godette.

 I. THE TITLE VII CLAIMS ALLEGED AGAINST DEFENDANT CAPTAIN HENRY GODETTE SHALL BE DISMISSED BECAUSE HE IS NOT AN ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.