COMPLAINANTS MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT

Melody J. Rodgers

2248 Kay Road

Greenville, NC 27858

(704) 968-6565 

melodyjrodgers@yahoo.com 

Complainant in pro per

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

You are notified that on _______________ (date), at ______ (time), or as soon thereafter as the Complainant can be heard, at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Court at _______________________________________________________ (address), the Complainant will bring on for hearing her Motion for Summary Judgment for the reasons stated in the attached Motion.

Dated this ____ day of _____________________, 2021.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________

Melody J. Rodgers,

Complainant in pro per

Melody J. Rodgers

2248 Kay Road

Greenville, NC 27858

(704) 968-6565 

melodyjrodgers@yahoo.com 

Complainant in pro per

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

COMPLAINANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE:

Complainant Melody J. Rodgers files this Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants Gina Raimonda and Department of Commerce, to declare and affirm that there is no genuine issue of material fact; that Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment, and that Complainant’s employment was wrongfully terminated by Defendants in retaliation to complains raised by Complainant in regard to her former supervisor’s conduct.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1. Ms. Laura McLettie (Laura), Complainant’s former supervisor, was supposed to coordinate housing arrangements for Complainant. She failed to do so and Complainant had to cater for her own expenses when indeed they were supposed to be paid for under the coordination of Laura. Upon seeking reimbursement, Laura failed to compensate Complainant.
2. Laura falsely accused Complainant of submitting her work late and threatened to terminate her employment when she requested to go on leave. Subsequently, Laura did not allow Complainant to utilize her leave days. Laura also made Complainant to call her every day of the week of [DATES] to confirm that she wanted to keep her job. Complainant had to endure hostility from Laura to prove to her that she needed to keep her job. Laura also forced Complainant to attend training that was clearly optional and accused her of being late for meetings when indeed she had arrived early.
3. Laura’s actions against Complainant were fueled by colorism, established by the fact that she was a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha, a sorority group that discriminates against people whose color was darker than a paper bag, among them Complainant. Laura wore clothing and memorabilia that indicate she is a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha. Another employee under Laura’s supervision, Karol Didier, was actually late for meetings but she was not treated as harshly as Complainant who was never late for meetings. Karol Didier’s skin is much lighter than Complainant’s.
4. Eventually, Complainant became tired of tolerating Laura’s hostility and went to report her to the employee relations department. That did not stop Laura from continuing to be hostile against Complainant. Eventually, Complainant’s employment was terminated without cause. The termination was retaliation to the complaints that Complainant had raised against Laura.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

5. Complainant initiated this action on [DATE]. Subsequently, Defendants filed an Answer refuting the claims made by Complainant.
6. Complainant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on [DATE]. Defendants filed a Response to Complainant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on [DATE]. 
7. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on [DATE]. Complainant filed a Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on [DATE].
8. This Court asked each party to file a Prehearing Statement. Complainant filed her Prehearing Statement on [DATE]. Defendants filed their Prehearing Statement on [DATE].
9. Complainant now files this Motion for Summary Judgment because of undue delay on the part of Defendants.

GROUNDS FOR GRANTING OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10. Summary judgment is properly granted where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Marks v. Tasman, 589 A. 2d 205 (1991).
11. There is no genuine issue as to the following material facts of this case that prove existence of a hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation:

1. That Laura maliciously failed to cater for Complainant’s accommodation and prompted her to use her own money;
2. That Laura refused to imburse Complainant for the money she had spent on her accommodation;
3. That Laura falsely accused of failing to submit an article even though Complainant had already submitted it;
4. That Laura declined to allow Complainant to utilize her leave days;
5. That Laura threatened Complainant for causing her to be reprimanded;
6. That Laura falsely accused Complainant of arriving late for meetings;
7. That Laura placed Complainant on a Performance Improvement Plan for reporting her;
8. That Laura deliberately failed to add Complainant on the team calendar as well as emails;
9. That Laura deliberately failed to approve Complainant’s requests for business cards and other supplies;
10. That Laura called Complainant to threaten and berate her on her personal line that was supposed to be used for emergencies only;
11. That Laura falsely accused Complainant of failing to complete her training on time;
12. That Laura asked Complainant to enter hours worked on weekends as “Comp-travel time” instead of “Comp-time earned” which did not allow for payout for hours worked on weekends;
13. That Complainant’s employment was terminated and prevented from applying for unemployment benefits when she did not receive the cited enclosure and separation forms.

12. The facts outlined above show a clear pattern of a hostile working environment accentuated by Laura and retaliation for complains against Laura made by Complainant. Laura discriminated against Complainant when she treated her unfairly compared to other employees whose skin was lighter than a paper bag.
13. The moving party has the burden of proving the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact. Thompson Coal v. Pike Coal Co., 589 A.2d 205 (1991) Complainant has already fulfilled this burden. In addition, Defendants admitted in their prehearing statement that there is no issue of material fact. Exhibit 1.
14. On 02/22/2021, the learned judge issued a scheduling order requiring all parties to file a prehearing statement by 06/06/2021. Complainant complied with the requirement and filed her prehearing statement. On the other hand, Agency failed to submit its prehearing statement. That amounts to contempt and shows a lack of respect for the court process that allows for expeditious and speedy resolution of cases before it. It is not clear if Agency will continue with contempt and disrespect for the court process. Since already there’s no issue of material fact, it is in the best interests to grant this Motion.

REASONS WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant this Motion for Summary Judgment and issue a final judgment in her favor.

Dated this ____ day of _____________________, 2021.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________

Melody J. Rodgers,

Complainant in pro per

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )