# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 21

- 60911

Stephanie Goree,

Plaintiff

— Appellant ,

versus

City of Verona; J. B. Long, i n his individual capacity ,

Defendants

— Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:17

- cv

- 93

Before Southwick, Oldham , and Wilson , Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *
Stephanie Goree sued the City of Verona and J.B. Long, alleging that she suffered sexual harassment and gender discrimination while employed by the City of Verona Police Department. The district court granted in part the
defendants’ motion fo r summary judgment. Goree lost at trial and now appeals the summary judgment ruling and an evidentiary ruling . We affirm.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 24, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-60911 Document: 00516446162 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2022No. 21

- 60911

2 I.
Stephanie Goree began working for the Verona Police Department (“VPD”) in 2008. At that time, J.B. Long was the interim Chief of Police. Goree alleges that Long made inappropriate comments toward her and inappropriately touched her more than ten times in 2 008, leading her to file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and quit her job.
VPD hired a new Chief of Police in 2009, at which point Goree voluntarily withdrew her EEOC charge and rejoined VPD. In Januar y 2011, VPD hired a new Police Chief, Anthony Anderson. Goree alleges that Anderson made sexual remarks, inappropriately touched her on numerous occasions, and propositioned her for sex multiple times, all between January 2011 and June or July 2011. Goree does not allege that s he was sexually harassed between July 2011 and July 2015.
In July 2015, Long become Chief of Police. Goree alleges that later in 2015, Long made two sexually harassing remarks to her. On January 28, 2016, Goree submitted a written gr ievance against Long to the City of Verona’s Board of Aldermen. The Board held an executive session on March 10, 2016 , to address the grievance. Goree was given an opportunity to present witnesses or other evidence but did not do so, and the Board dismisse d Goree’s allegations.
Goree alleges that after making this complaint to the Board of Aldermen, Long cut her hours, refused to let her work overtime, forced her
to take a non

- random retaliatory drug screen, and force d her to drive and patrol in an unsafe patrol car. Goree further alleges that on February 27, 2017,

a day when Long was her backup, Long refused to assist her when she was assaulted while responding to a crime scene . Goree was hospitalized after the
assault and sustained substantial injuries. Case: 21-60911 Document: 00516446162 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2022No. 21

- 60911

3 Goree filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC in September

2016. She then filed this suit in June 2017. Goree brought Title VII gender discrimination and retaliation claims against the City of Verona, and
retaliation and equal protection claims against Long under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Verona and Long (“Defendants”) moved for summary judgment on all of Goree’s claims. The district court granted the motion in part. First, it
limited Goree’s sexual harassment and hostile work environment claim s to the conduct after Long became Chief of Police in July 2015. For the earlier alleged harassment, the court found that Goree missed the 180

- day deadline to file a charge with the EEOC, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

- 5(e)(1), and that the continuing violation doc trine did not permit consideration of the earlier alleged harassment given “the significant lapse in time between the alleged conduct and the intervening action of hiring new Chiefs.”
Second, the court found that Goree had abandoned her retaliation
claim because she did not address Defendants’ arguments regarding retaliation in her response to their summary judgment motion. In the alternative, the court held summary judgment should be granted on the
retaliation claim because Goree had not provided evidenc e that her prior complaint caused the alleged retaliatory conduct.
The court permitted Goree to proceed to trial on her Title VII hostile work environment claim against the City of Verona for post

- July 2015 conduct and on her § 1983 individual

- capacity ho stile work environment claim against Long. The jury found for Defendants on all claims

. Goree timely appealed. We review the district court’s summary judgment ruling de novo , and its evidentiary rulings at trial for abuse of
discretion. Smith v. Regional T ransit Auth. , 827 F.3d 412, 417 (5th Cir. 2016); Kelly v. Boeing Petroleum Servs., Inc. , 61 F.3d 350, 356 (5th Cir. 1995). Case: 21-60911 Document: 00516446162 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/24/2022No. 21

- 60911

4 II.
Goree makes three arguments on appeal. None ha s merit.
First, Goree argues that the district court erred by granting summary j udgment to the Defendants with respect to pre

- 2015 conduct. She claims that she should have been permitted to rely on such conduct under the continuing violation doctrine, because no intervening employer act

— such as a “prompt remedial action to protect the claimant,” see Stewart v. Miss. Transp. Comm’n , 586 F.3d 321, 329 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted)

— severed the earlier harassment from the post

- July 2015
harassment. We have cautioned, however, that to invoke the continuing
violation doc trine, “ t he plaintiff must demonstrate that the separate acts [of harassment] are related

. ” Id. at 238. Moreover, “the continuing violation doctrine is tempered by the court’s equitable powers, which must be exercised to honor Title VII’s remedial purpose without negating the particular purpose of the filing requirement.” Id.
Here, the district court properly found that Goree could not rely on earlier alleged incidents of harassment under the continuing violation
doctrine . Specifically, although Goree alleges that she suffered sexual
harassment in 2008 and over a five or six

- month period in 2011, she concedes
that matters thereafter improved and she suffered no harassment for a period of four years or more

. Additionally , the Chief of Police title changed hands multiple times during that period. This long delay and intervening personnel changes defeat any attempt to argue that the earlier and post

- July 2015 harassment should be treated as a single violation under the continuing
violation doctrine. See

, e.g. , Felton v. Polles , 315 F.3d 470, 486 (5th Cir. 2002) (holding that a “three

- year break defeats any attempt to establish a continuing violation”); accord Butler v. MBNA Tech., Inc. , 111 F. App’x 230, 234 (5th Cir. 2004). Case: 21-60911 Document: 00516446162 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/24/2022No. 21

- 60911

5 Second, Goree argues tha t the district court erred by finding that she
had abandoned her retaliation claim in her summary judgment briefing. Goree points to factual allegations regarding harassment that she now claims was retaliatory and sufficiently close in time to the filing o f her EEOC charge to support a Title VII retaliation claim. But in her summary judgment briefing, Goree did not ever use these factual allegations to defend her retaliation claim, nor did she explain any causal connection between her EEOC charge and the ha rassment. So the district court’s abandonment holding was not error. See, e.g. , Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff
Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (a court need not “raise and discuss legal issues that [a party] has failed to assert”).

Thi rd and finally, Goree argues that the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of Long’s failure to respond to the assault

on February 27, 2017. The district court heard a proffer of this evidence and then excluded it after finding that i t was only relevant to Goree’s retaliation claim, which she had abandoned at the summary

- judgment stage. On appeal,
Goree does not argue that her evidence concerning the assault is relevant to

any thing other than her retaliation claim. And we ha ve already held the district court proper l y granted summary judgment to the Defendants on that
claim . So we cannot find that it was an abuse of discretion to exclude evidence only relevant to a theory of liability that was no longer in the case. See Kelly , 61 F.3d at 356.

AFFIRMED

. Case: 21-60911 Document: 00516446162 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/24/2022