Opinion ID: 68464
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hanford’s Employment with GEO

Text: Defendant GEO specializes in the private operation and management of correctional facilities worldwide. GEO operates the South Bay Correctional Facility (“South Bay”), a close-custody, adult male detention facility in South Bay, Florida. Plaintiff Hanford, who is African-American, began working as a Corrections Officer at South Bay in November 1996. “Corrections Officer” is the lowest title in the hierarchy of employees at South Bay. Higher positions are, in ascending order, Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, Colonel, Assistant Warden, and Warden. Richard Clark, who is white, was the Warden of South Bay beginning in December 2002. In September 2003, Clark was named Vice President of the Eastern Region, a position he held concurrently with his position as Warden of 1 We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence presents no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “In examining the record, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Thomas, 506 F.3d at 1363. 2 South Bay until December 2003. Ernest Stepp, who is white, became Warden of South Bay in December 2003. In 2001, Hanford was promoted from Corrections Officer to Sergeant. In February 2003, Clark promoted Hanford to Lieutenant. The positions of Sergeant and Lieutenant both include supervisory responsibilities. GEO had an employee discipline policy while Hanford was employed. The discipline policy provided for various levels of disciplinary sanctions for employees who violated GEO policies and rules, including reprimand, disciplinary probation, suspension, demotion/shift reassignment, and termination. The discipline policy listed as non-exhaustive examples of violations that may result in disciplinary action: “[m]alicious use of profane or abusive language or racial slurs[,]” and “[d]estroying evidence or giving false testimony.” It also provided: “depending on the surrounding circumstances, the level of violation may vary[,]” and “[t]ermination may be applied under appropriate circumstances to any violation.” GEO supplied Hanford with updated versions of the Employee Handbook containing the employee discipline policy throughout his employment. B. Hanford’s Conduct and Disciplinary Actions Taken Against Him GEO imposed various disciplinary sanctions on Hanford throughout his career. In October 1998, Hanford was suspended for three days for using profane 3 or abusive language in the workplace. While he was a Lieutenant, Hanford received (1) a written reprimand for again using profane or abusive language; and (2) a written reprimand for handcuffing an inmate for too long. On September 16, 2004, a Corrections Officer at GEO submitted an Incident Report and Employee Complaint Form alleging Hanford called him a “nigger” and used profanity towards him and threatened to lie about the incident if a complaint were filed.2 On September 18, 2004, a Sergeant at GEO submitted another Incident Report and Employee Complaint Form alleging Hanford used profanity towards her. Hanford later admitted he told her, “I don’t give a damn what you do.” These two complaints against Hanford were investigated by the Facility Inspector and Assistant Inspector at South Bay, both of whom are AfricanAmerican. The inspectors concluded there was sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations that Hanford violated GEO policies against use of profanity and giving false testimony. The Facility Inspector forwarded her written assessment of the charges against Hanford to Warden Stepp. In accordance with GEO policy, Warden Stepp directed that the two complaints be combined and heard in a 2 In an affidavit collected during the investigation of this complaint, another GEO employee stated she heard Hanford say, “Fuck nigger, you better walk a straight line from here on out.” 4 disciplinary hearing. Warden Stepp assigned Assistant Warden Norvell “Ray” Meadors to conduct the hearing and recommend disciplinary actions. Meadors is white. On February 28, 2005, Assistant Warden Meadors conducted a disciplinary hearing at which Hanford appeared. Meadors concluded evidence substantiated the allegations against Hanford. Meadors recommended to Warden Stepp that Hanford be terminated. Hanford alleges Meadors’s recommendation was the result of unlawful racial bias. Warden Stepp disagreed with Meadors and altered the recommended punishment to a ten-day suspension. In accordance with GEO policy, Stepp forwarded his recommendation to Vice President Clark for a final determination. Clark ultimately concluded Hanford should be suspended for ten days and demoted from Lieutenant to Corrections Officer. Clark did not discuss the matter with Meadors before imposing the suspension and demotion, which became effective on March 14, 2005.3 3 GEO has a history of disciplining employees for use of profane language, although the record reflects no instance where an employee was demoted or terminated solely for use of profane language. One employee was found to have committed unprofessional conduct and was given a written warning. Another employee, who was white, was found to have called a coworker a “God damn nigger” and received a thirty-day suspension. A third employee received a five-day suspension for insubordination and use of profane language. One employee was terminated because he used threatening language and approached another employee in the parking lot. Finally, an employee who referred to female employees as “whores” received a tenday suspension. 5 After Hanford was demoted, Warden Stepp selected a white female employee to replace him as a Lieutenant. Candidates for the promotion were given a score based on their attendance, skills and training, experience, job performance, and an exam. Four candidates, three of whom were African-American, scored higher than the white female ultimately promoted, but each had various problems not reflected in their scores, such as being under investigation for an incident, having a spouse working in the department, having work availability issues, or being rated lower because Stepp lacked confidence in them. Stepp evaluated the applicants’ scores and other criteria without input from Meadors. On March 16, 2005, Hanford submitted two internal complaints to GEO complaining of unfair investigative procedures and that GEO policy was not correctly followed in disciplining him. Neither complaint mentioned racial discrimination. GEO investigated Hanford’s complaints and determined GEO’s policy had been followed in disciplining Hanford and Hanford’s complaints otherwise were unfounded. C. Hanford’s Post-Demotion Employment and Termination After his ten-day suspension, Hanford returned to work. On March 27, 2005, he was assigned to work in a construction area. He was later assigned to work in the “H Dorm.” Upon receiving this assignment, Hanford took a leave of 6 absence for medical reasons from May 23, 2005 to October 10, 2005. He filed a third grievance concerning this assignment to H Dorm during his medical absence. He complained the new assignment to H Dorm was retaliation by Meadors in response to Hanford’s earlier submission of grievances related to his demotion. In October 2005, Hanford returned to work and was assigned to work in Classification. On November 29, 2006, GEO received a letter from Clarence Freeman, Sr., a self-described “Community Leader for Justice,” complaining of alleged racism and discrimination at South Bay. Enclosed with this letter was a separate letter from Hanford alleging racial discrimination at South Bay. Hanford primarily alleged that Meadors acted with racial animus against him in recommending his termination at the end of Hanford’s disciplinary hearing. Although Hanford’s letter purported to be dated as of August 17, 2005, Hanford did not provide his letter to GEO until it was received in the November 2006 transmittal from Freeman. GEO assigned Investigations Director Bradley Dunn to investigate Hanford’s racial discrimination allegations. Hanford did not fully cooperate with Dunn during the investigation. In December 2006, Hanford was again suspended, for five days, for violation of GEO policy by refusing to cooperate and interfering 7 with Dunn’s investigation of his racial discrimination complaint. Hanford served this suspension and then took several days of vacation and sick leave in early 2007. Hanford failed to report to work at the end of his sick leave. Ten days later, on March 26, 2007, GEO terminated Hanford for abandoning his post. D. District Court Proceedings Hanford filed this action alleging GEO demoted him from Lieutenant to Corrections Officer based on his race in violation of § 1981. Hanford’s one-count complaint does not allege retaliation, wrongful termination, or that GEO’s decision to reassign him to H Dorm was discriminatory. GEO moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The district court determined Hanford’s only actionable claim was for racial discrimination in his demotion. The district court concluded Hanford did not state a prima facie case of discrimination because (1) given the disciplinary actions taken against him, he was no longer qualified for the Lieutenant position to which the white female was promoted; and (2) he did not present evidence of similarlysituated employees who were treated more favorably.4 The district court also 4 The district court reasoned each of the comparator employees identified by Hanford, including several who were disciplined short of demotion for use of profanity, were not similarly situated to Hanford because none of them possessed Hanford’s unique characteristics of being a supervisor who used both racial slurs and profanity to his subordinates and then threatened to lie 8 found that, even if Hanford had established a prima facie case, GEO presented legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the demotion and Hanford had not shown the reasons were pretext for racial discrimination.5 Hanford filed this timely appeal.