Brandy Newbury v City of Windcrest, Texas, 20-50067 (5th Cir. March 22, 2021)
This is an employment discrimination case where the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the granting of the City’s motion for summary judgment.
Brandy Newbury was a police officer within her first year of employment with the City. Newbury asserted during the first year she was sexually harassed by a female supervisor, Officer Jaime because Jaime was rude to her and confrontational. The City hired an outside investigator who determined Jaime was rude, but the actions did not constitute sexual harassment. Later on, during the first year, Newbury asserted she heard a rumor another officer was following her trying to catch her violating City policy. She reported her belief that was occurring, but nothing was done. Finally, Newbury asserts the City was secretly recording her in her home by remotely activating her body-worn camera. While the manufacturer testified the cameras could not be remotely activated that way, Newbury continued to assert a §1983 claim for invasion of privacy. However, Newbury admitted she never saw a recording of herself taken and based her belief on the fact a red light on her camera would come on by itself. Newbury asserted the treatment was so bad she felt forced to resign, but then later asserted she was terminated. The City filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted. Newbury appealed.
The Fifth Circuit started by noting Title VII is not a general civility code for the American workplace. Contrary to Newbury’s assertions, the panel distinguished this case from the recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion of Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) holding that while the Bostock decision “expanded the groups of individuals protected by Title VII, it in no way altered the preexisting legal standard for sexual harassment.” The panel held Newbury did not receive an adverse personnel action as a supervisor’s “rudeness” was insufficient to constitute an adverse action. Additionally, the rude actions complained of did not rise to that “greater degree of harassment” that would cause a reasonable person to resign. Additionally, a shift-change, even one which has an officer on it the plaintiff does not like, is not an actionable claim. Newbury failed to provide sufficient evidence that comparable men and women were treated differently. Newbury failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation since no adverse employment action occurred. Further, the evidence demonstrated she resigned and was not terminated. Therefore, all of her Title VII claims failed. Finally, Newbury failed to establish the body-worn cameras actually recorded her or that, even if she had produced recordings, there was a policy, custom, or practice which would have caused the recordings. As a result, the trial court properly granted the City’s summary judgment motion.
If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consists of Justices Jones, Smith and Elrod. Opinion by Justice Smith.