Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JUDY M. LEONARD,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cv-00003-MP-AK

ALBERTO GONZALES,

ATTORNEY GENERAL ,

Defendant.

___________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Docs. 27 

& 31. The motion was originally filed as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, but because matters

outside the pleadings were presented and not excluded by the Court, the Court converted the

motion into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment and entered the requisite Brown / Griffith

order advising Plaintiff of her responsibilities. Doc. 32. She did not respond to the motion for

summary judgment, and thus, this cause is in a posture for decision. Having carefully considered

the matter, the Court recommends that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted

and this cause be dismissed with prejudice. 

BACKGROUND

 The plaintiff, Judy Leonard, was employed by the Bureau of Prisons at FCC Coleman,

Florida, as an Inmate Systems Officer at all pertinent times. Doc. 29, Ex.1. According to

Plaintiff’s EEOC complaint, received on April 11, 1997, she was pressured to sign the false

accusations and was given “minimally satisfactory” job performance ratings that were

undeserved. Doc. 29, Ex. 1. Plaintiff also claimed she was assigned new work locations and

Case 1:03-cv-00003-MP-AK Document 33 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5

Case No: 1:03-cv-00003-MP-AK

odd shifts, she was not permitted to rotate to the medium security part of the prison, she was

supervised by persons not her senior, she was denied transfer and vacation requests, and she was

referred to as a “blond bimbo” by the Associate Warden. Id. Plaintiff further maintained that

this treatment was unfair and directed at her because she is a strong-willed woman. Id. As relief,

Plaintiff requested a transfer to Butner, North Carolina. Id.

On January 30, 1998, EEOC Investigator Sherian Fabo was appointed to investigate

Plaintiff’s complaint of discrimination, and Plaintiff was sent a letter informing her of the issues

identified in her complaint. Doc. 29, Ex. 2 & 3. Plaintiff met with an EEO counselor, who

found that plaintiff felt she was being discriminated against after being given a bad performance

evaluation, and plaintiff was given a notice of right to file a discrimination complaint on April 4,

1997. Doc. 29, Ex. 4. 

An EEOC administrative hearing was held on February 13, 2001 before the

administrative law judge. Doc. 29, Ex. 5. On March 23, 2001, the ALJ issued his findings,

concluding that Plaintiff “was not discriminated against based on her sex or as an act of reprisal

in violation of Title VII with regard to any of the allegations raised.” Id. at 25-26. At that time,

he also found that the only timely discrimination issues were the “minimally satisfactory” job

performance ratings from the February, 1997, incident and the assignment to a new job location. 

Id. at 13. The ALJ further concluded that the job performance ratings and pressure to sign the

accusations were not harassment, and that there was no evidence of suffering or reprisal due to

the job assignment. Id. at 16-25. 

Case 1:03-cv-00003-MP-AK Document 33 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5

Case No: 1:03-cv-00003-MP-AK

On May 4, 2001, the Department of Justice issued a Final Order accepting the ALJ’s

decision

that [Plaintiff] was not subjected to a hostile work environment, discriminated

against because of her sex, or retaliated against when she was pressured to sign

two “minimally successful” performance log entries in February 1997, was

assigned to work in new work locations, was supervised by employees with less

seniority than she, was assigned odd shifts, was denied three choices for vacation

leave, was subjected to inappropriate comments in front of inmates, was told that

the Associate Warden had referred to her as a “blond bimbo,” and was denied

equal time in the receiving and discharge (R&D) area.

Doc. 29, Ex. 6. The Memorandum in Support of the Final Order noted that a continuing

violation appeared to exist and discussed the merits of all of Plaintiff’s claims. The memorandum

concluded that Plaintiff was not discriminated against based on her sex because of her rotation

assignments, supervision by lower-graded staff, shift assignments, denial of vacation time,

performance ratings, and pressure to sign the accusations. Doc. 29, Ex.7 at 9-12. The

memorandum stated that there was no objective evidence that Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile

or abusive workplace because of her sex. Id. at 12. 

Plaintiff appealed the Final Order on May 30, 2001. Doc. 29, Ex. 8. The EEOC issued a

decision affirming the final agency order “because the Administrative Judge’s ultimate finding,

that unlawful employment discrimination was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence, is

supported by the record.” Doc. 29, Ex. 9.

Plaintiff requested reconsideration only on the “blonde bimbo” issue. Doc. 29, Ex. 10. 

In her estimation, because “the Associate Warden referred to her as a ‘blonde bimbo’ she

became the ‘butt of much harassment from supervisors, coworkers, and inmates’ which

result[ed] in a hostile work environment. Id. at 2. The EEOC denied reconsideration on

September 18, 2002, and plainly advised Plaintiff that she must file any civil action in federal

Case 1:03-cv-00003-MP-AK Document 33 Filed 06/02/06 Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5

Case No: 1:03-cv-00003-MP-AK

court “within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision.” Id.

(emphasis in original). The Certificate of Mailing states: “For timeliness purposes, the [EEOC]

will presume that this decision was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed.” 

Id. at 4. The certified date of mailing was September 18, 2002. Id. Plaintiff’s copy of the

request denial is marked, presumably by Plaintiff, “Recd 9/23/02.” Doc. 29, Ex. 12.

Plaintiff filed the instant complaint in this Court on January 7, 2003, which is 106 days

after receiving the denial of reconsideration. Doc. 1. 

As previously noted, Defendant made a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, which

the Court converted into a motion for summary judgement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6). Although Plaintiff was carefully advised of her responsibilities with regard to

responding to this motion, she has remained silent.

DISCUSSION

A plaintiff must file a Title VII suit in federal court “[w]ithin 90 days of receipt of notice

of final action taken...by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission upon an appeal from a

decision or order of [a federal] department, agency, or unit on a complaint of discrimination

based on...sex....” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). This period may be equitably tolled when the

defendant conceals an act supporting the Title VII cause of action and when the defendant

misleads the employee regarding the nature of her Title VII rights. Washington v. Ball, 890 F.2d

413, 414-15 (11th Cir. 1989).

As previously noted, Plaintiff filed this action approximately 16 days out of time, and

there is nothing in the record to suggest that equitable tolling applies. On the contrary, Plaintiff

was clearly advised of her rights with regard to the deadline for filing suit in this Court.

Case 1:03-cv-00003-MP-AK Document 33 Filed 06/02/06 Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5

Case No: 1:03-cv-00003-MP-AK

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s motion

for summary judgment, Docs. 27 & 31, be GRANTED, and this cause be DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, this 2nd day of June, 2006.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations

within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. A party may

respond to another party’s objections within 10 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure

to file specific objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case 1:03-cv-00003-MP-AK Document 33 Filed 06/02/06 Page 5 of 5