United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
STARRETT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment
 filed by Defendants City of Hattiesburg and Johnny
Dupree. After considering the submissions of the parties, the
record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that this
motion should be granted in part and denied in part.
Dana Coleman (“Plaintiff”) was employed by
Defendant City of Hattiesburg (the “City”) from
2012 until 2016, as the office manager for Municipal Court
Judge Jerry Evans (“Judge Evans”). Her position
required her to work directly with Faye Hicks
(“Hicks”), the municipal clerk. The deputy clerks
of the municipal court answered to both Hicks and Plaintiff.
Plaintiff and Judge Evans are white. Hicks and
of the deputy clerks are African American.
September 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court against
Defendants the City and former Mayor Johnny Dupree
“Defendants”), alleging that she had been the
victim of racial harassment and bringing claims under Title
VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and state law
claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress. She later filed an Amended Complaint , alleging
that, because of this ongoing harassment, she was forced to
quit her job, and adding a claim of constructive discharge.
Standard of Review
Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that “[t]he court
shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “Where the burden of production at
trial ultimately rests on the nonmovant, the movant must
merely demonstrate an absence of evidentiary support in the
record for the nonmovant's case.” Cuadra v.
Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 808, 812 (5th Cir.
2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The
nonmovant must then “come forward with specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Id. “An issue is material if its resolution
could affect the outcome of the action.” Sierra
Club, Inc. v. Sandy Creek Energy Assocs., L.P., 627 F.3d
134, 138 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Daniels v. City of
Arlington, Tex., 246 F.3d 500, 502 (5th Cir. 2001)).
“An issue is ‘genuine' if the evidence is
sufficient for a reasonable [fact-finder] to return a verdict
for the nonmoving party.” Cuadra, 626 F.3d at
812 (citation omitted).
Court is not permitted to make credibility determinations or
weigh the evidence. Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d
156, 164 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Turner v. Baylor
Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir.
2007)). When deciding whether a genuine fact issue exists,
“the court must view the facts and the inferences to be
drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party.” Sierra Club, 627 F.3d at 138. However,
“[c]onclusional allegations and denials, speculation,
improbable inferences, unsubstantiated assertions, and
legalistic argumentation do not adequately substitute for
specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.”
Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 744 (5th Cir. 2002)
(citation omitted). Summary judgment is mandatory
“against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient
to establish the existence of an element essential to that
party's case, and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial.” Brown v. Offshore
Specialty Fabricators, Inc., 663 F.3d 759, 766 (5th Cir.
2011) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)).
has explicitly conceded all claims against Johnny Dupree, in
both his official and individual capacity. All claims against
Dupree will therefore be dismissed with
prejudice. Plaintiff has also stated that she will
not be pursuing any claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981
and 1983. These claims will also be dismissed with
prejudice. Finally, because Plaintiff makes no
argument as to her wage discrimination claim under Title VII,
this claim will be dismissed with prejudice
Hostile Work Environment under Title VII
establish a hostile work environment claim under Title VII,
Plaintiff must establish:
(1) she belongs to a protected group; (2) she was subjected
to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment complained of was
based on race: (4) the harassment complained of affected a
term, condition, or privilege of employment; (5) the employer
knew or should have known of the ...