United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
LOUISE T. SPEARMAN PLAINTIFF
REHABILITATION CENTERS, LLC d/b/a Millcreek of Magee DEFENDANT
M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court in this employment discrimination action is
Rehabilitation Centers, LLC's motion for summary
judgment. Doc. #38.
November 1, 2017, Louise T. Spearman, acting pro se, filed a
complaint for employment discrimination against “Acadia
Healthcare Inc dba Millcreek of Magee.” Doc. #1.
complaint asserts a claim for wrongful termination based on
sex. Id. On January 11, 2018, Rehabilitation
Centers, LLC (“Millcreek), ” asserting that it
was “incorrectly identified as Acadia Healthcare,
” answered the complaint. Doc. #8. On November 13, 2018,
Millcreek filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. #38.
Spearman did not respond to the motion.
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
“[s]ummary judgment is proper only if the pleadings and
record materials reveal no genuine issue as to any material
fact.” Renwick v. PNK Lake Charles,
L.L.C., 901 F.3d 605, 611 (5th Cir. 2018). “A
material fact is one that might affect the outcome of the
suit under governing law, and a fact issue is genuine if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the non-moving party.” Id.
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In making
these determinations, a court “must view the evidence
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, drawing
all justifiable inferences in the non-movant's
favor.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
alterations omitted). “The party moving for summary
judgment bears the burden of identifying the portions of the
record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact, and the nonmovant must then point to or
produce specific facts demonstrating that there is a genuine
issue of material fact.” James v. Woods, 899
F.3d 404, 407 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and
alteration omitted). “Where the nonmoving party bears
the burden of proof at trial, the moving party satisfies this
initial burden by demonstrating an absence of evidence to
support the nonmoving party's case.” Celtic
Marine Corp. v. James C. Justice Cos., Inc., 760 F.3d
477, 481 (5th Cir. 2014).
as here, the moving party raises a defense of qualified
the court must decide: 1) Whether the facts, taken in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff, make out a violation
of a constitutional right; and 2) whether that right was
‘clearly established' at the time of the
defendant's alleged misconduct so that a reasonable
official in the defendant's situation would have
understood that his conduct violated that right.
Dean v. Phatak, 911 F.3d 286, 291 (5th Cir. 2018).