Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 1 Filed 10/02/2000 Page 1 of 4

12 () IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

€4sM~·~DIIS.,.f

TYLER DIVISION

N f)1'~"'~7l.,.COt.JIl'"

. Ocr "'2

Of:"'J:"~
~s

8

CA VIC

2000

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY }

0)0'

·MAJ./ •.

Epl.l7y-"'WD, CI..S

COMMISSION,

}

}

Plaintiff,

}

} COMPLAINT

v.

}

}

TCIM SERVICES, INC.,

}

(JURY DEMANDED)

}

}

Defendant.

}

-------------------------------}

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to correct unlawful employment practices and to make whole Charging Party, Sharon Boyd. The Commission alleges that the Defendant, TCIM Services, Inc. (hereafter "TCIM"), retaliated against Ms. Boyd because of her opposition to employment practices she believed to be unlawful.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. lurisdictionofthis Court is invokedpursuantto 28 U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and(3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e5(f)(1) and (3), and Section 102 ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

COMPLAINT

1

\

Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 1 Filed 10/02/2000 Page 2 of 4

PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(a). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, TCIM Services, Inc., has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Texas, and has continuously had at least fifteen employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Ms. Sharon Boyd filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by the Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. In or about January of 1999, Defendant retaliated against Ms. Boyd in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-3. Specifically, Defendant discharged Ms. Boyd from her position ofBranch Recruiter in retaliation for her opposition to unlawful employment practices which she believed discriminated against Black job applicants and employees. 8. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Ms. Boyd of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee. 9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7, above, were intentional.

COMPLAINT

2

Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 1 Filed 10/02/2000 Page 3 of 4

10. The unlawful employment practices complained ofin paragraph 7, above, were done with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Boyd.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant, TCIM Services, Inc., its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates in violation of Title VII and, specifically, from subjecting its employees to retaliatory treatment in violation of Title VII. B. Order the Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for Ms. Boyd, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order the Defendant to make whole Ms. Boyd by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest in amounts to be proved at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightful place reinstatement of Ms. Boyd. D. Order the Defendant to make whole Ms. Boyd by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order the Defendant to make whole Ms. Boyd, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained ofin paragraphs 7 and 8, above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

COMPLAINT

3

Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 1 Filed 10/02/2000 Page 4 of 4
F. Order the Defendant to pay punitive damages for its malicious or reckless conduct
described in paragraph 7, above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.
H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by the complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
C.GREGORYSTEWART General Counsel Designate
~ROBERT A. CANINO Regional Attorney Oklahoma State Bar No. 011782
SUZANNE M. ANDERSON Supervisory Trial Attorney Texas Bar No. 14009470
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Dallas District Office 207 South Houston Street 3rd Floor Dallas, Texas 75202 Tel No. (214) 655-3337 Fax No. (214) 655-3331

COMPLAINT

4

 
 Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 15 Filed 04/30/2001 Page 1 of 3

~OD NAY 01 '01

FILEO-"·······

EASYS, DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU!RT - ERN D/STRfCTOFTEXAS

i
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TExtS

APR 302001

TYLER DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

§

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

§

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

v.

§

6:00cv590

§

TCIM SERVICES, INC.,

§

§

Defendant.

§

ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH

Came on this day to be considered the PlaintifJEEOC 's Motion to Quash Defendant's

Deposition Upon Written Questions and Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 13).

After careful consideration, the Court is ofthe opinion that the following order should issue.

BACKGROUND

The Plaintiff in this case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

(hereinafter "EEOC") has filed the instant motion objecting to depositions upon written

questions and subpoenas on several third parties. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant

wishes to embark on a "fishing expedition." Specifically, the Plaintiff objects to questions

pertaining to certain areas ofMr. Boyd's personal history, claiming that they are unrelated

to any claim or defense in the case.

The Defendant, in its response, claims that the purpose ofthe written depositions are

to obtain records from employers for whom Mrs. Boyd worked both before and after her

V I

employment with them. The Defendant also alleges that Mrs. Boyd's credibility will be a

Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 15 Filed 04/30/2001 Page 2 of 3
central issue in the case and the information that is requested may also lead to various defenses.
ANALYSIS
With regard to relevant discoverable material, the Fifth Circuit has stated "information is relevant if it encompasses any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case." Coughlin v. Lee, 946 F.2d 1152, 1159 (5th Cir. 1991). Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(I) provides in part:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party... [r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial ifthe discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Given the light burden placed on a party to seek discoverable information, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs motion to quash should be denied. The Plaintiff in this case has alleged that the credibility ofthe Mrs. Boyd is likely to be the central issue in the case. Also, it is clear to the Court that requests of information from her past and present employers may reasonably lead to additional admissible evidence relevant to Mrs. Boyd's damages or even alternative defenses. Because the Court is denying EEOC's motion to quash, a protective order is not necessary in this case.
-2-

Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 15 Filed 04/30/2001 Page 3 of 3

·It is therefore

ORDERED that the Plaintiff EEOC's Motion to Quash Defendant's Deposition

Upon Written Questions and Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 13) is hereby

DENIED.

It is further

ORDERED that all relief requested not specifically granted herein is DENIED.

:z SIGNED this

~-
7 day of April, 2001.

~io~AiE~IS~n1i56E

O:\CIVIL\E.E.O.C\quash
-3-

 
 Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 17 Filed 05/16/2001

EOD MAY 18 '01

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXA

Page 1 of 3
. FILED
U.I. DI8TJUCT COUR1' EAS1'!RN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
NAY f 6 2001

TYLER DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

§

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

§

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

v.

§

6:00cv590

§

TCIM SERVICES, INC.,

§

§

Defendant.

§

ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL

Came on this day to be considered the Defendant TCIM's Motion to Compel

Production ofDocuments (Docket No. 16). After careful consideration, the Court is of the

opinion that the following order should issue.

BACKGROUND

The Defendant in this case recently requested an authorization to obtain Boyd's

medical records. The Plaintiffin this case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

(hereinafter "EEOC") did not provide the authorization, choosing instead to produce a

portion of the medical records it obtained from Boyd's medical provider. Upon

examination, the Defendant learned that the Plaintiff has failed to produce many of the

previously mentioned medical records. The Defendant has now filed this motion to compel

requesting that the Court order the Plaintiff to disclose all of the medical records.

Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 17 Filed 05/16/2001 Page 2 of 3
ANALYSIS
With regard to relevant discoverable material, the Fifth Circuit has stated "information is relevant ifit encompasses any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case." Coughlin v. Lee, 946 F.2d 1152, 1159 (5th Cir. 1991). Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides in part:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party... [r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). This Court has previously ordered the Plaintiff to "disclose all medical records and bills that are reasonably related to the injuries or damages asserted or, in lieu thereof, an authorization permitting the disclosure of such medical records and bills." See Discovery and Docket Control Order (1 )(g). Given the light burden placed on a party to seek discoverable information, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs motion to compel should be granted. The Court finds that Boyd's medical condition is certainly at issue in this case. Also, it is clear to the Court that these medical records may reasonably lead to additional admissible evidence relevant to Mrs. Boyd's damages or even alternative defenses. Accordingly, the Court orders that all of the documents requested by the Defendant be produced by May 21, 2001.
-2-

Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 17 Filed 05/16/2001 Page 3 of 3

It is therefore

ORDERED that the Defendant TCIM's Motion to Compel Production ofDocuments

(Docket No. 16) is hereby GRANTED.

It is further

ORDERED all of the requested medical records be disclosed to the Defendant by

MONDAY, MAY 21, 2001.

It is further

ORDERED that all relief requested not specifically granted herein is DENIED.

/ 3 SIGNED this

day of May, 200 1.

~~~~

UNITED STATES DISTRIC JUDGE

O:\CIVIL\E.E.O.C\compeJ
-3-

 
 ·

Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 56 Filed 12/27/2001 Page 1 of 11

fOO riC' l 'Jl

F I LED
u.s. DISTI'UCT COURT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU T EASTeRN DISTRfCT OF TEXAS

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TE

DEC 2 7 ZOOf

TYLER DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

§

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

§

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

v.

§

§

TCIM SERVICES, INC.,

§

§

Defendant.

§

6:00cv590

DAVfO •
BY
DEPUTY

ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On this day came for consideration the Defendant, TCIM Services, Inc. 's, Motionfor

Summary Judgement (Docket No. 21). After careful consideration, the Court is of the

opinion that the following order should issue.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is an employment discrimination lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff, Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), on behalf of Sharon Boyd ("Boyd"),

against the Defendant TCIM Services, Inc. ("TCIM") under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act

of1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3, in which the EEOC alleges retaliation, and seeks

injunctive and monetary relief. EEOC contends that TCIM retaliated against Boyd, a white

female, by terminating her employment because she refused to comply with an alleged

directive by Pamela Diane Thacker ("Thacker"), her branch manager, not to hire too many

African-Americans.

Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 56 Filed 12/27/2001 Page 2 of 11
TCIM is a telemarketing company providing marketing support to private industry and government. Out-bound sales and marketing services is one type of several services provided by TCIM. The associates working the telephones at an out-bound center are referred to as Telephone Sales Associates or TSA's. On or about October 13, 1998, TCIM began readying its new out-bound call center in Longview, Texas. Thacker, who began her employment with TCIM in November 1994, as a Branch Manager in Tulsa, Oklahoma, was chosen to manage the Longview branch. Several TCIM employees from other branches formed a small temporary start-up group to help the Longview branch launch successfully. Among this start-up group were Katie McGoy ("McGoy") and Delia Glover ("Glover"), both Black female TCIM recruiters who worked for Thacker in Tulsa. Thacker specifically requested McGoy and Glover be a part of the start-up group, who were brought in to help set up recruiting, hire the initial group of associates and train the Recruiter. To fully staff the management/front office team in Longview, Thacker hired yet another Black female named Deardra Turner Woods ("Woods") as the Branch Office Administrator.
Thacker interviewed several candidates for the Recruiter position at the Longview branch, including Boyd. Boyd was interviewed a second time and hired on or about October 28, 1998, after the person originally hired to be the Recruiter was terminated due to unsatisfactory performance. For two days, McGoy and Glover worked to train Boyd to satisfactorily perform the duties of a Recruiter.
According to the evidence presented by the Defendant, Boyd was counseled and reprimanded on several occasions for conduct directly related to her performance as a
-2-

Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 56 Filed 12/27/2001 Page 3 of 11
Recruiter. After working as a Recruiter for less than three months, Thacker informed Boyd that she could not remain employed as a Recruiter. Thacker offered Boyd the opportunity to remain employed with TCIM by accepting a position as a TSA with no reduction in pay. As a TSA, Boyd would be eligible to earn commissions from sales along with her hourly pay. Boyd refused the offer and returned to work the following day. At that point, on or about January 27, 1999, Thacker terminated Boyd.
Boyd followed proper procedures by initially filing a complaint with the EEOC, and all prerequisites to the filing of suit have been met. EEOC filed suit on behalf of Boyd on October 3,2000. Through the instant motion, the Defendant now claims that it is entitled to summary judgment because Boyd was terminated solely for legitimate, non-retaliatory business reasons arising from her failure to perform her duties and responsibilities as a Recruiter. Additionally, the Defendant claims that EEOC cannot sustain its burden to prove that "but for" the alleged protected activity, Boyd would not have been terminated.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A party is entitled to summary judgment on all or any part of a claim "if 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 oflaw." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247,106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The moving party must show initially that there is no genuine issue of any material fact. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256, 106 S.Ct. at 2514. The movant may meet this burden by
-3-

Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 56 Filed 12/27/2001 Page 4 of 11
pointing out the absence of evidence supporting any essential element of the non-moving party's claim. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 23-25, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
In deciding whether to grant a motion for summary judgment, the Court "review[s] the evidence and inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Duplantis v. Shell Offshore, Inc., 948 F.2d 187, 189 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing Duvall v. The Ritz Carlton Hotel Co., 946 F.2d 418,420 (5th Cir. 1991), and quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c». An issue is "genuine" only if the evidence could lead a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Thomas v. Price, 975 F.2d 231,235 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. at 2513).
The opposing party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials ofartful pleading, but must set forth affirmative facts that show a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256, 106 S.Ct. at 2514. This requires that the non-moving party make a showing sufficient to establish the existence ofany element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden at trial. Nowlin v. R.T.C., 33 F.3d 498,501 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-553).
ANALYSIS
The Plaintiff's Retaliatory Termination Claim With respect to Title VII retaliatory termination cases, Courts apply the familiar
McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting rubric. Rubenstein v. Administrators ofthe Tulane
-4-

Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 56 Filed 12/27/2001 Page 5 of 11
Educ. Fund, 218 F.3d 392, 40 1-02 (5th Cir. 2000). A plaintiffestablishes aprimafacie case of retaliation by proving:
(1) that she engaged in a protected activity; (2) that an adverse employment action occurred; and (3) that a causal link exists between the protected activity and the adverse action. Sherrod v. American Airlines, Inc., 132 F.3d 1112, 1122, n. 8 (5th Cir. 1998). If the plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the burden shifts to the defendant to come forward with a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse decision. Id., 132 F.3d at 1122. This burden is one of production only, and it does not involve credibility determinations. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142 (June 12,2000). Once the defendant satisfies this burden, the burden ofproduction then shifts back to the plaintiffto produce evidence, which iftrue, would permit a reasonable trier offact to find that defendant's proffered reasons are pretextual. Martin v. Kroger Co., 65 F.Supp.2d 516, 559 (S.D. Tex. 1999), ajJ'd, Martin v. Kroger Co.,224 F.3d 765 (5th Cir. 2000). To demonstrate a "pretext for discrimination," EEOC must show both (1) that TCIM's stated reasons are false and (2) that prohibited retaliation was the actual reason for termination. Id. Unlike disparate treatment cases, which require only that the prohibited factor be a substantial motive in the defendant's adverse action, the ultimate determination in a retaliation case is whether the adverse employment action would not have occurred "but for" the protected activity. Id., 65 F.Supp.2d at 559; Sherrod, 132 F.3d at 1122. The plaintiff
-5-

Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 56 Filed 12/27/2001 Page 6 of 11
must reveal a conflict in substantial evidence on this ultimate issue to withstand summary judgment. Id. Evidence is "substantial" if it is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions. Id.
It is a well established precept of law that an employee's own subjective belief of discrimination under Title VII, no matter how genuine, cannot serve as the basis for judicial relief. SeePricev. Marathon Cheese Corp., 119F.3d330, 337 (5thCir.1997);Armendariz v. Pinkerton Tobacco Co., 58 F.3d 144, 153 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1047, 116 S.Ct. 709, 133 L.Ed.2d 664 (1996). Thus, in order to withstand TCIM's Motion for Summary Judgment, the EEOC must do more than simply assert Boyd's beliefthat she was fired because Thacker wanted her to engage in unlawful activity. The agency must produce evidence to establish that there is a conflict of substantial evidence by which the trier offact could find that she would not have been terminated but for her protected activity. Prima Facie Case ofRetaliatory Termination
TCIM does not contest the first two elements of the Plaintiffs claim - that Boyd participated in a protected activity and that she was subject to an adverse employment decision. However, the Defendant does aver that the Plaintiff has failed to establish her primafacie case of retaliation by failing to establish a causal connection between these two elements. The Court agrees.
The evidence presented by the Defendant shows that Thacker counseled Boyd on numerous occasions concerning (1) using inappropriate language when talking to applicants
-6-

Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 56 Filed 12/27/2001 Page 7 of 11
with words like "honey," "sweetie," or "babe"; (2) exercising proper restraint and not embroiling herselfin disputes involving other associates; (3) remaining focused on her duties as the Recruiter as opposed to inquiring as to TSA's problems which were not within her scope of responsibilities; (4) conducting interviews in a professional manner by not interrupting the interview for personal telephone calls or being on the telephone when applicants arrived for their scheduled appointments; and (5) leaving an interview to go do something else. See Deposition ofMcDonald, pp. 134-36; see also Deposition ofThacker, p. 71. The counseling sessions occurred during Boyd's short three-month tenure as a Recruiter with TCIM.
Thacker ultimately was forced to remove Boyd from her position as Recruiter after Woods complained to Thacker about Boyd's unprofessional behavior during an interview, which occurred on or about January 26, 1999. This incident occurred just days after Boyd was given instruction, training and guidance on, among other things, proper interview techniques. See Deposition ofThacker, pp. 147-48; see also Deposition ofWoods, p. 42, 92. Woods and Boyd shared an office, and as a result Woods was present during the interview. According to Boyd's own testimony, she was interviewing an applicant that had many children when Boyd asked her the following question: "Don't you know what birth control is?" Deposition ofBoyd, pp. 174-75. Boyd's conduct during the aforementioned interview, as reported by Woods, was the final straw which convinced Thacker that Boyd lacked the capability to handle the duties and responsibilities of the Recruiter.
-7-

Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 56 Filed 12/27/2001 Page 8 of 11
Boyd was aware that TelM Recruiters must at all times act and present themselves and the company in a professional manner. She further understood that TelM was striving to convey a professional image. See Deposition ofBoyd, p. 220. In an effort to instill this professionalism, Thacker counseled Boyd about her performance on more than one occasion, as mentioned above. Yet, Boyd failed to follow the counseling of Thacker.
Boyd's own actions following her termination further the Defendant's argument that no causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment decision exists. Boyd's actions constitute an admission that the prohibited activity had nothing to do with her termination. Immediately after Thacker terminated Boyd, she confronted Woods and began screaming and cursing at her. Boyd blamed Woods for her termination, believing that Woods' report to Thacker was the cause of her termination. Id., p. 179; see also Deposition of Woods, pp. 92-3.
Boyd further validated Thacker's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for terminating Boyd when she called Thacker the day after her termination. On or about January 28, 1999, Boyd called Thacker to apologize and ask for her job back. During the conversation Boyd attempted to justify her irrational behavior the day before. The pertinent part of the conversation is as follows:
Boyd: You know, I didn't mean to buck up on you, you know, and I'm sure you've got a temper too and I didn't mean to upset you, for you to have an asthma attack or anything else like that. I just -- I have gone through -- if you just had any idea of what I've gone through the past couple ofweeks. I blew, okay? Ijust -- I literally just blew my temper and which, you know, I shouldn't have.
Thacker: Vh-huh.
-8-

Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 56 Filed 12/27/2001 Page 9 of 11
Boyd: And, I respect, you know, I respect you. I just didn't think I would get terminated.
Thacker: Vh-huh.
Boyd: And, you know, it hurt my feelings. And if I hadn't gotten so close to the people that I had gotten close maybe it wouldn't have even bothered me.
Thacker: Vh-huh.
Boyd: But it did. And I guess that's the reason I got so angry because I was in shock. And then I also thought, you know, maybe because I'm wearing a heart monitor you felt that I was high risk there.
Thacker: Not at all.
Transcribed Tape Recording of Boyd/Thacker Telephone Call. Later III the same conversation, Boyd apologized for her behavior and threats again:
Boyd: I mean, you have bad days too Diane. Okay? And I know you go through a lot as well. And I don't want to threaten anybody in what I said yesterday I truly apologize for.
Thacker: Well, I appreciate that.
Boyd: You know, and I didn't mean any hard feelings between you or bring up any bad things that had happened. I just, I went through an emotional deal myself, you know and I just -- it just, it just hit, you know? Have you ever been to that point to where you just blow? Well I blew at the wrong time. And I you know I took out a lot of my faults out on y'all. I just was in shock that it happened. I still feel Deardra's my friend. I don't feel like she did anything intentionally to hurt me, and, you know, Ijust need to, you know, I needed ajob.
Thacker: Vh-huh.
Boyd: So, I'm trying to find out what I can do to make things right.
Id.
At no time during their conversation did Boyd accuse Thacker of terminating her
employment because she had refused to adhere to the alleged directive not to hire more
-9-

Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 56 Filed 12/27/2001 Page 10 of 11
African-Americans, nor did she even mention anything related to such alleged directives. To the contrary, Boyd admitted, once again, that she believed Woods had caused her termination by reporting her misconduct to Thacker. She also expressed her belief that Thacker had terminated her employment because she was wearing a heart monitor. This conversation demonstrates Boyd's belief that the alleged refusal to ignore the alleged admonition that she was hiring too many African-Americans was not the "but for" cause of her termination. Rather, she admitted to Thacker that it was her own behavior and actions that led to her termination.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not established a causal connection between Boyd's protected activity and her 1999 termination by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of establishing a prima facie case of retaliatory termination. As such, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment should be granted with regard to that claim.l
CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the pleadings, the briefs of the parties, and the excerpts from the Plaintiffs deposition submitted as summary judgment evidence, the Court holds that summary judgment should be granted and this case should be dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs claim retaliation is either factually or legally deficient. Even when viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Court finds that there is no
1 Even if the Plaintiff could establish a prima facie case of retaliation, she has not provided substantial evidence to the Court that: (1) TCIM's articulated reason for terminating her is false; and, (2) prohibited retaliation was the actual reason for termination. Martin, 65 F.Supp.2d at 559.
-10-

Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 56 Filed 12/27/2001 Page 11 of 11
genuine issue as to any material fact and the Defendant, TeIM, is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to all of the Plaintiff s remaining claims. It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant, TCIM Services, Inc. 's, Motion for Summary Judgement (Docket No. 21) is hereby GRANTED in all respects. It is further
ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to all the Plaintiff s claims. It is further
ORDERED that all other motions currently pending in this case are hereby DENIED AS MOOT. It is further
ORDERED that all relief not expressly granted is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that each party shall bear its own costs and fees. It is further ORDERED that this case is CLOSED.
SIGNED this d 1th day of December, 2001.
UNITED STATES bIST

O:\CIVIL\E.E.O.C\sumjdgment.wpd

-11-

 
 .----------=--_._--- Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 57 Filed 12/27/2001 Page 1 of 2

J.:uu IEZ 1'01

FI LED

u~s. DlSTPUCT COURT

EASTeRN DISTRICT OF TEXAJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXA
TYLER DIVISION

OEe 21 200f
,
!
t _._._ ... ..~_..-...--.-.-.-J

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

§

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

§

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

v.

§

6:00cv590

§

TCIM SERVICES, INC.,

§

§

Defendant.

§

FINAL JUDGMENT

On even date herewith, the Court granted the Defendant, TCIM Services, Inc. 's, Motion for

Summary Judgment (Docket No. 21). The Court held the Plaintiffs claims were either factually

or legally deficient, and should therefore be dismissed with prejudice. The Court's Order on

Summary Judgment serves as final disposition of this case.

It is therefore

ORDERED that the Defendant have judgment over the Plaintiff.

It is further

ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to all the Plaintiffs

claims.

It is further

ORDERED that all other motions currently pending in this case are hereby DENIED AS

MOOT.

Case 6:00-cv-00590-WMS Document 57 Filed 12/27/2001 Page 2 of 2 It is further
ORDERED that all relief not expressly granted is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that each party shall bear its own costs and fees. It is finally
ORDERED that this case is CLOSED.
... .,..z.,
SIGNED this I 'A.. day of December, 2001.
JUDGE
-2-

 
 CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?413934340566838-L_9...

U.S. District Court [LIVE] Eastern District of TEXAS LIVE (Tyler) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:00-cv-00590-WMS

CLOSED, JURY

EEOC v. TCIM Services Inc Assigned to: Judge William M. Steger Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race) Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
V. Defendant

Date Filed: 10/02/2000 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Ronetta J Francis EEOC 207 South Houston Street Dallas, TX 75202 214/655-3337 Fax: 12146553331 Email: ronetta.francis@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Suzanne Elizabeth Anderson EEOC 207 South Houston Street Dallas, TX 75202 214/253-2740 Fax: 214/655-3331 Email: suzanne.anderson@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William C Backhaus Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 207 S Houston St 3rd Floor Dallas, TX 75202 214/655-3335 Fax: 12146553331 Email: william.backhaus@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 5

8/14/2007 2:57 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?413934340566838-L_9...

TCIM Services Inc

represented by Gary B Eidelman Saul Ewing LLP 100 S Charles St Baltimore, MD 21201-2773 410/332-8975 Fax: 14103328976 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/02/2000 10/02/2000
10/02/2000 10/12/2000 11/13/2000 11/14/2000 11/27/2000
12/22/2000 12/26/2000 01/08/2001
02/21/2001

#

Docket Text

1 Original Complaint filed. Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race) (former empl) (Entered: 10/03/2000)
2 In compliance with section b of Local Rule CV-26 and after a review of the pleadings, this action has been assigned to track 3 for case management purposes. cc: pla 10/03/00 (former empl) (Entered: 10/03/2000)
Demand for jury trial by EEOC (former empl) (Entered: 10/03/2000)
Mail returned: [2-1] miscellaneous addressed to Suzanne Michel for EEOC; return to sender (mjm) (Entered: 10/12/2000)
3 Motion by TCIM Services Inc for Gary B Eidelman to appear pro hac vice (mjm) (Entered: 11/15/2000)
PHV Filing Fee paid by atty Gary Eidelman; PHV FILING FEE $ 10.00 RECEIPT # 612018 (mjm) (Entered: 11/15/2000)
4 ORDER granting [3-1] motion for Gary B Eidelman to appear pro hac vice (signed by Judge William M. Steger ) cc:attys 11-28-00 (mll) (Entered: 11/28/2000)
6 Notice of attorney appearance for EEOC by Ronetta J Francis (mjm) (Entered: 12/27/2000)
5 Answer to complaint by TCIM Services Inc (mjm) (Entered: 12/27/2000)
7 ORDER, of Notice of Scheduling Conference, Proposed Deadlines for Docket Control Order and Discovery Order; the dcheduling conference is set for 2/23/01 at 10:00; set scheduling conference for 10:00 2/23/01 before Judge William M. Steger (signed by Judge William M. Steger ) cc: WMS, parties 1/9/01 (sealed) (Entered: 01/09/2001)
8 DISCOVERY AND DOCKET CONTROL ORDER setting Join parties by 3/26/01; Amend pleadings by 6/7/01 for TCIM Services Inc, for EEOC; Identify trial witnesses by 6/22/01 for TCIM Services Inc, for EEOC; Expert witness list by 4/24/01 for TCIM Services Inc, for EEOC; Deadline for filing of all dispositive motions 6/11/01 for TCIM Services Inc, for EEOC; All pretrial motions due 7-6-01; Motions in limine due 7-11-01; Pretrial order to be submitted on or before 7/11/01 for TCIM Services Inc, for EEOC; Discovery closes 6-4-01; Deadline for parties to mediate 6-4-01; Jury selection and trial

2 of 5

8/14/2007 2:57 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?413934340566838-L_9...

03/27/2001 03/28/2001 04/05/2001 04/09/2001 04/24/2001 04/26/2001
04/30/2001
05/07/2001 05/16/2001
05/18/2001 05/18/2001 05/18/2001 06/11/2001 06/18/2001 06/20/2001 06/22/2001 06/26/2001 06/27/2001 06/27/2001

begins at 10:00 7/23/01; Jury instructions due by 7/11/01 for TCIM Services Inc, for EEOC ( signed by Judge William M. Steger 2-20-01) cc:attys 2-21-01 (mll) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
9 Notice of disclosure by EEOC (mll) (Entered: 03/27/2001)
10 Notice of disclosure by TCIM Services Inc (mll) (Entered: 03/28/2001)
11 Notice of disclosure by EEOC (mll) (Entered: 04/06/2001)
12 Notice of supplemental initial disclosure by EEOC (mll) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
13 MOTION by EEOC to quash deposition upon written questions , and for protective order (mll) (Entered: 04/24/2001)
14 Response/Opposition by TCIM Services Inc to [13-1] motion to quash deposition upon written questions, [13-2] motion for protective order (mll) (Entered: 04/26/2001)
15 ORDER denying [13-1] motion to quash deposition upon written questions, denying [13-2] motion for protective order ( signed by Judge William M. Steger 4-27-01) cc:attys 5-01-01 (mll) (Entered: 05/01/2001)
16 MOTION by TCIM Services Inc to compel production of documents (mll) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
17 ORDER granting [16-1] motion to compel production of documents. All requested medical records shall be disclosed to deft by 5-21-01. All relief requested not specifically granted is DENIED ( signed by Judge William M. Steger 5-15-01) cc:attys 5-18-01 (mll) (Entered: 05/18/2001)
18 Fax noticing receipt of #17 Order to compel to attorney Gary B Eidelman for defendant TCIM Services Inc 05-18-01 09:58 a.m. (mll) (Entered: 05/18/2001)
19 Fax noticing receipt of #17 Order to compel to attorney Ronetta J Francis for plaintiff EEOC 05-18-01 09:59 a.m. (mll) (Entered: 05/18/2001)
20 Fax noticing receipt of #17 Order to compel to attorney Suzanne Elizabeth Michel for plaintiff EEOC 05-18-01 10:03 a.m. (mll) (Entered: 05/18/2001)
21 MOTION by TCIM Services Inc for summary judgment (mll) (Entered: 06/11/2001)
22 Mediation Report filed by Mediator Courtenay Bass. Mediation result: impasse (mll) (Entered: 06/18/2001)
23 MOTION by EEOC to take videotaped trial deposition of witness Krista Broughton (mll) (Entered: 06/20/2001)
24 Trial Witness list filed by TCIM Services Inc (mll) (Entered: 06/22/2001)
25 Response and brief in support by EEOC to [21-1] motion for summary judgment (mll) (Entered: 06/27/2001)
26 Notice of pretrial disclosure by EEOC (mll) (Entered: 06/27/2001)
27 Notice of second supplement to its initial disclosure by EEOC (mll) (Entered: 06/27/2001)

3 of 5

8/14/2007 2:57 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?413934340566838-L_9...

06/27/2001 06/28/2001 07/02/2001 07/02/2001 07/02/2001
07/02/2001
07/03/2001
07/03/2001 07/03/2001 07/06/2001 07/06/2001 07/06/2001 07/06/2001 07/06/2001 07/10/2001 07/11/2001 07/11/2001 07/11/2001 07/11/2001

28 Notice of pretrial disclosure by TCIM Services Inc (mll) (Entered: 06/27/2001)
29 Response/Opposition by TCIM Services Inc to [23-1] motion to take videotaped trial deposition of witness Krista Broughton (mll) (Entered: 06/29/2001)
30 MOTION by TCIM Services Inc to extend time to reply to response to motion for summary judgment (mll) (Entered: 07/02/2001)
31 Notice of attorney appearance for EEOC by William C Backhaus (mll) (Entered: 07/02/2001)
32 ORDER denying as moot [23-1] motion to take videotaped trial deposition of witness Krista Broughton ( signed by Judge William M. Steger 6-29-01) cc:attys 7-2-01 (mll) (Entered: 07/02/2001)
33 ORDER vacating the trial date set out in [8-1] Scheduling order . All other deadlines listed therein remain in full force and affect; continuing indefinitely jury trial previously set for 7-23-01 ( signed by Judge William M. Steger ) cc:attys 7-2-01 (mll) (Entered: 07/02/2001)
34 ORDER granting [30-1] motion to extend time to reply to response to motion for summary judgment, and extending time to 7-9-01 to file a reply brief to EEOC's response to TCIM's motion for summary judgment ( signed by Judge William M. Steger ) cc:attys 7-3-01 (mll) (Entered: 07/03/2001)
35 Reply by TCIM Services Inc to response to [21-1] motion for summary judgment (mll) (Entered: 07/05/2001)
36 MOTION by TCIM Services Inc to strike pltf's amended paycalc report (mll) (Entered: 07/05/2001)
37 Response/Objections by EEOC to [24-1] witness list (mll) (Entered: 07/06/2001)
38 Response/Objections by EEOC to deft's deposition witness designations (mll) (Entered: 07/06/2001)
39 Response/Objections by EEOC to deft's exhibit list (mll) (Entered: 07/06/2001)
40 MOTION by EEOC to strike deft's use of audiotape and associated transcript (mll) (Entered: 07/06/2001)
41 Response/Objections by TCIM Services Inc to pltf's pretrial disclosures (mll) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
42 Motion by EEOC, TCIM Services Inc to extend time to file proposed Joint Jury Instructions and interrogatories . (fnt) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
43 Notice of Deficiency regarding the MOTION IN LIMINE submitted by plaintiff EEOC . Correction should be made by 7-18-01 (mll) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
44 Motion by EEOC with memorandum in support in limine (mll) (Entered: 07/13/2001)
45 MOTION by TCIM Services Inc in limine (mll) (Entered: 07/13/2001)
46 Joint Proposed pre-trial order received from EEOC, TCIM Services Inc (mll) (Entered: 07/13/2001)

4 of 5

8/14/2007 2:57 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?413934340566838-L_9...

07/12/2001
07/18/2001 07/20/2001 07/20/2001 07/20/2001 07/26/2001 07/26/2001 07/26/2001 07/27/2001 12/27/2001
12/27/2001

47 ORDER granting [42-1] motion to extend time to file proposed Joint Jury Instructions and interrogatories, and extending time to file joint proposed jury instructions and interrogatories to 7-20-01 ( signed by Judge William M. Steger ) cc:attys 7-13-01 (mll) (Entered: 07/13/2001)
48 Response/Objections by TCIM Services Inc to [40-1] motion to strike deft's use of audiotape and associated transcript (mll) (Entered: 07/19/2001)
49 MOTION by EEOC to amend [1-1] complaint (mll) (Entered: 07/20/2001)
50 MOTION by EEOC to extend time to respond to deft's motion to strike pltf's amended paycalc report (mll) (Entered: 07/20/2001)
51 Proposed Jury instructions by EEOC, TCIM Services Inc (mll) (Entered: 07/23/2001)
52 Response/Opposition by EEOC to [36-1] motion to strike pltf's amended paycalc report (mll) (Entered: 07/26/2001)
53 Response by TCIM Services Inc to [49-1] motion to amend [1-1] complaint (mll) (Entered: 07/26/2001)
55 Answer to First Amended Complaint by TCIM Services Inc (mjm) (Entered: 08/01/2001)
54 Reply by TCIM Services Inc to response to [36-1] motion to strike pltf's amended paycalc report (mjm) (Entered: 07/31/2001)
56 ORDER granting [21-1] motion for summary judgment, and dismissing with prejudice . All motions not previously ruled on are hereby denied as moot. All relief not expressly granted is DENIED. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees. This case is CLOSED ( signed by Judge William M. Steger ) cc:attys 12-27-01 (mll) (Entered: 12/27/2001)
57 FINAL JUDGMENT for TCIM Services Inc against EEOC. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice as to all pltf's claims. All other motions currently pending in this case are DENIED AS MOOT. All relief not expressly granted is DENIED. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees. This case is CLOSED ( signed by Judge William M. Steger ) cc:attys 12-27-01 (mll) (Entered: 12/27/2001)

5 of 5

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
08/14/2007 14:56:53

hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

6:00-cv-00590-WMS

3

Cost:

0.24

8/14/2007 2:57 PM