Snowden v. Southerton

Background

Latoya Snowden brought an employment-discrimination action against the County of Sullivan under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging race discrimination. Snowden worked as a Certified Nurse Assistant at a County-operated nursing home from 2013 until her suspension in January 2020 and termination in September 2020.

Snowden testified that Susan Southerton, the Acting Administrator and Director of Nursing, made repeated comments about her hair and fingernails and told her she was acting “too ghetto.” Snowden also claimed that other non-white employees were disciplined more often than white employees and that Southerton favored white employees.

After Snowden was assigned to Unit Four, she reported that two white nurses referred to her as a “bitch,” refused to work with her, and said they did not like Black people. Snowden asked to be moved but was not reassigned. She later became involved in a dispute about her tardiness and a separate January 2020 parking-lot incident involving several nurses. Snowden said she tried to calm the situation and that no physical fight occurred. Snowden and another nurse, Maria Cruz, were suspended with pay after the incident; the white nurse involved, Rachel Hadley, was not disciplined.

The County later brought civil-service charges against Snowden for violating workplace-violence and discrimination or harassment policies. Snowden was suspended without pay, and a hearing officer recommended her termination. The County’s appointing authority adopted that recommendation and terminated her.

Motion and legal standard

The County moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view disputed facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion, here Snowden.

Snowden’s Title VII claim was analyzed under the burden-shifting framework used for discrimination claims based on circumstantial evidence. Under that framework, the employee must first show basic facts supporting an inference of discrimination. The employer must then identify a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. The employee may proceed by presenting evidence from which a factfinder could conclude that the stated reason was a pretext, meaning it was not the whole reason and that discrimination was also a motivating factor.

Suspension claim

The court held that Snowden presented enough evidence to meet the initial, minimal burden for her suspension claim. It found that the discipline imposed after the 2020 incident supported an inference of discrimination because the Black and Hispanic nurses were disciplined while the white nurse was not, even though the evidence indicated that the white nurse had engaged in conduct of comparable seriousness.

The County offered Snowden’s involvement in the 2020 incident and her disciplinary record as legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the suspension. The court concluded, however, that Snowden had presented sufficient, though “thin,” evidence for a reasonable jury to find that these reasons were not the entire explanation. That evidence included the alleged racial comments, treatment by white employees, preferential treatment of white nurses, and Southerton’s role in the decision to suspend Snowden and pursue the civil-service charges.

The court also rejected the argument that Snowden’s own testimony could not create a factual dispute. It found that her testimony was not so inconsistent or implausible that no reasonable jury could believe it. The court therefore concluded that genuine disputes of material fact remained concerning whether Snowden was suspended at least partly because of her race.

Termination claim

The court reached a different conclusion regarding termination. It agreed that Snowden had not shown circumstances supporting an inference that her termination was caused by race. The termination followed a hearing officer’s recommendation, and Snowden identified no evidence that the hearing officer’s stated justification was pretextual. The court therefore dismissed Snowden’s Title VII race-discrimination claim concerning her termination.

Disposition

The court denied the County’s motion for summary judgment. Snowden’s Title VII race-discrimination claim concerning her suspension survives, while her Title VII claim concerning her termination is dismissed. The court also noted that Snowden had agreed to give up her claim under the rule governing local-government liability and ordered the parties to submit a stipulation of voluntary dismissal for that claim. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the motion.