Split Appeals Court rules against Fort Bragg discrimination complaint

A federal Appeals Court has split, 2-1, in ruling against a black woman’s claim of workplace discrimination at Fort Bragg more than a decade ago. The majority’s decision Monday affirmed a trial judge’s ruling in the dispute.

Dorothy Seabrook worked as family programs manager at the US Army Reserve Command at Fort Bragg.

Her legal dispute started with events in September 2013, when she and her supervisor convened a meeting to evaluate a white male employee’s performance, according to the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals opinion. By March 2014, a proposed suspension for that employee was placed on hold. Seabrook alleged “a coordinated agenda to intentionally undermine Seabrook’s supervisory authority,” appellate Judge Allison Jones Rushing wrote.

In early 2014, the Army started looking into complaints about Seabrook’s conduct and work environment. “After a five-month investigation, the Army concluded that Seabrook’s ‘negative leadership’ had ‘created a toxic work environment’ and that she ‘made inappropriate or belittling comments … and/or made inappropriate physical contact’ with employees, all of which was conduct ‘unbecoming a federal employee and supervisor,’” Rushing wrote.

In July 2014, Seabrook was placed on a two-week suspension and “was escorted out during work hours and in view of other employees,” the 4th Circuit opinion explained. Her commanding officer upheld the decision. Seabrook later agreed to a reassignment.

She filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in January 2015, “alleging that the Army discriminated against her on account of her race, color, and sex by undermining her authority, investigating her, and suspending her,” Rushing wrote. After receiving a poor performance evaluation, she filed a second complaint in May 2015.

The EEOC found no discrimination by the Army. When Seabrook followed up with a federal lawsuit against the Army secretary, US District Judge James Dever dismissed the complaint.

“Seabrook does not allege facts to plausibly state a claim that the Army disciplined her because of her race, color, or sex,” Rushing wrote. “Seabrook claims she did ‘not have a record of poor performance or conduct as a toxic leader’ and so ‘it could only be’ race, color, or sex ‘that would motivate management to take this action.’ Although Seabrook disputes the investigative findings, she has alleged no factual basis to support the conclusion that discriminatory bias, rather than the outcome of the investigation, was the Army’s true motivation for disciplining her.”

The 4th Circuit’s majority rejected Seabrook’s argument that she faced “disparate punishment” compared to white employees.

“Having liberally construed Seabrook’s complaint and considered the documents attached thereto, we agree with the district court that she has failed to state any claim upon which relief can be granted,” Rushing wrote.

Judge Julius Richardson joined Rushing’s opinion. Judge Roger Gregory dissented.

“The majority’s holding that Seabrook’s retaliation and disparate treatment claims fail at the motion to dismiss stage represents an astonishing departure from circuit precedent,” Gregory wrote. “And its impact on plaintiffs bringing retaliation and disparate treatment claims in the future will be devastating.”

Gregory focused on Seabrook’s attempt “without success”  to “initiate a disciplinary action against a white male employee who had conduct and performance issues.”

“Seabrook, as directed, continued to contact the Army regarding the white male employee’s continuing cycle of non-performance and creating a hostile work environment, but the Army declined to suspend or discipline him,” Gregory wrote.

In contrast, Seabrook faced a much different outcome, Gregory added. “The same individuals who advised Seabrook not to issue the white male employee a poor performance review rating without prior counseling or the issuance of a performance improvement plan advised [her supervisor] that it was acceptable to issue the poor performance review to Seabrook.”

“It is undisputed that Seabrook engaged in perhaps the most quintessential protected activity — filing a formal EEO complaint in January 2015 — and in February 2015, she suffered an adverse action by way of receiving a poor review,” Gregory wrote. “As such, Seabrook clearly has pled a plausible claim for retaliation that satisfies the pleading standard. … Likewise, Seabrook clearly has pled a plausible claim for disparate treatment based on the stark differences in how she and a white male employee were assessed during the performance evaluation process.”

The post Split Appeals Court rules against Fort Bragg discrimination complaint first appeared on Carolina Journal.

The post Split Appeals Court rules against Fort Bragg discrimination complaint appeared first on First In Freedom Daily.