# Rogers v. City of Chattanooga

> District Court, E.D. Tennessee · October 17, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10435599

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** October 17, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10435599

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “the constructive discharge test sets a high bar in order to give an employer an opportunity to address the situation before an employee resigns”
- discussing methods of establishing the “based on” element of a hostile work environment claim

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
CHATTANOOGA DIVISION

SARAH ROGERS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:21-cv-00293-SKL
)
CITY OF CHATTANOOGA and )
CHATTANOOGA POLICE )
DEPARTMENT, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This is a sex-based employment discrimination and retaliation case. Plaintiff Sarah
Rogers1 is a former officer with the Chattanooga Police Department (“CPD”). Currently before
the Court is a motion for summary judgment [Doc. 36] filed by Defendants CPD and the City of
Chattanooga. The motion is accompanied by a supporting brief and several exhibits [Doc. 36 &
Doc. 37]. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, also with supporting exhibits [Doc. 38].
Defendants did not file a reply, and the time for doing so has passed. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1.
Neither side requested a hearing, and the Court finds a hearing is not necessary to resolve the
motion. This matter is now ripe. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment will be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2016, Plaintiff was a cadet at the policy academy. She alleges that during an off-duty
social gathering, she was raped by fellow cadet Zachary Smith (“Smith”) and his then-wife. All

1 While Plaintiff’s last name has changed, the Court uses “Rogers” to be consistent with the
complaint and most of the exhibits.
three were heavily intoxicated and admit to not remembering portions of the evening. Plaintiff did
not report the incident to anyone at the time and simply avoided talking to Smith for the remainder
of the academy. After graduation, Plaintiff and Smith did not cross paths again until September
1, 2020. When they did, Plaintiff insisted Smith report the 2016 incident and resign from the CPD.

Smith reported the incident to CPD Internal Affairs (“IA”) either that same day or shortly
thereafter, and IA commenced an investigation. By the end of 2020, IA had determined that Smith
should be charged with Unbecoming Conduct and Criminal Offenses/Felony.2 This determination
was based on statements Smith made to Plaintiff when she confronted him on September 1, 2020,
as well as on Smith and his wife’s “inability to refute the allegations,” due to their intoxication and
resulting impaired memories [Doc. 36-26 at Page ID # 340-41; Doc. 38-3 at Page ID # 529-31].
According to Plaintiff, as the investigation into these charges proceeded, Smith continued
to work as normal, meanwhile Plaintiff was retaliated against, subjected to a hostile work
environment, and constructively discharged. She claims the CPD sergeants who conducted her
initial interview for the IA investigation into the alleged rape ambushed and threatened her with

criminal prosecution; and CPD more generally “did not proceed with the investigation properly or
sensitively.” [Doc. 38 at Page ID # 460]. She further asserts “that her relationships with other
officers immediately started to sour because she was no longer at line-ups due to the [CPD’s]
refusal to separate Plaintiff’s assailant from her during the investigation.” [Id.]. She claims that
she was “told by fellow officers that she was no longer going to receive back up when she called.”
[Id.].

2 “Charged” in this context means charged with violating CPD employment policies. The record
does not reflect that criminal charges against Smith (or his former wife) were ever contemplated.
In addition, Plaintiff claims IA “began to open numerous ‘mickey mouse’ investigations,
things that were normally handled by chain of command,” and she was “subjected to formal
investigation after formal investigation following her allegations against [Smith].” [Id. at Page ID
# 459]. By contrast, she asserts Smith “was not subject to any discipline for his egregious acts of

misconduct.” [Id.].
Smith was granted a pre-disciplinary hearing pursuant to Cleveland Board of Education v.
Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), which took place on April 22, 2021. The record reflects Smith
submitted evidence during the April 22 hearing, and, as a result, the hearing was continued until
September 1, 2021 [Doc. 38-3 at Page ID # 532]. In the interim, CPD investigated Smith’s
evidence and conducted a forensic examination of his phone [id.].
Plaintiff resigned by letter dated April 28, 2021 [Doc. 38-1 at Page ID # 462]. Many
months later, on August 30, 2021, Interim Police Chief Eric Tucker notified Smith that he (Tucker)
had reviewed all the evidence and determined that the two charges against Smith (Unbecoming
Conduct and Criminal Offenses/Felony) would not be sustained [Doc. 38-3 at Page ID # 532-33].

Thus, the September 1 Loudermill hearing was canceled.
Plaintiff filed suit in Hamilton County Chancery Court on November 1, 2021, and
Defendants timely removed the case to this Court. The section of Plaintiff’s complaint listing her
“Claims” [Doc. 1-2 at Page ID # 9] provides:
19. Defendants violated T.C.A. § 4-21-401(a)(1) by unlawfully
discriminating against Plaintiff and retaliating against Plaintiff in the
terms and conditions of her employment on the basis of her sex.

20. Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e by unlawfully
discriminating against Plaintiff and retaliating against Plaintiff on
the basis of her sex.

21. Defendants are responsible for the acts of [their] supervisory
agents.
As noted above, Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of these claims on September 1,
2023.
II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Summary judgment is proper when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). The Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and makes
all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Natl’ Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Eliadis Inc., 253 F.3d
900, 907 (6th Cir. 2001).

The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of
material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The moving party may
discharge this burden either by producing evidence that demonstrates the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact or by “‘showing’—that is, pointing out to the district court—that there is an
absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325. It must support its position
either by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record,” including depositions, documents,
affidavits or declarations, stipulations, or other materials; or by “showing that the materials cited
do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot
produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (c)(1). Where the movant

has satisfied this burden, the nonmoving party cannot “rest upon its . . . pleadings, but rather must
set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Moldowan v. City of Warren,
578 F.3d 351, 374 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56). The
nonmoving party must present sufficient probative evidence supporting its claim that disputes over
material facts remain and must be resolved by a judge or jury at trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986) (citing First Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S.
253 (1968)); see also White v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., 617 F.3d 472, 475-76 (6th Cir.
2010). If the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of its
case with respect to which it has the burden of proof, the moving party is entitled to summary

judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
At summary judgment, the Court may not weigh evidence; its role is limited to determining
whether the record contains sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find for the
non-movant. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49. A mere scintilla of evidence is not enough; there
must be evidence from which a jury could reasonably find in favor of the nonmoving party.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252; Moldowan, 578 F.3d at 374.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Gender Discrimination
Plaintiff asserts Defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her sex “by
inconsistent disciplining procedures between her and her assailant a male officer.” [Doc. 38 at

Page ID # 448]. She claims that after Smith reported the 2016 incident at her insistence, she
“became the subject of multiple IA investigations and disciplinary actions for minor infractions,”
while “her male co-worker and assailant was not disciplined for such egregious acts of misconduct
thereby showing such disparate treatment which violates [her] rights.” [Id. at Page ID # 449]. In
short, Plaintiff’s discrimination claim is mainly based on the alleged difference in treatment she
received as compared to Smith after Plaintiff came forward about the 2016 incident and insisted
Smith report the incident to CPD.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on
“race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The same principles apply
to a Tennessee Human Rights Act (“THRA”) claim as to a Title VII claim. See Austin v.
Alexander, 439 F. Supp. 3d 1019, 1024 n.2 (M.D. Tenn. 2020) (“The analysis of claims brought

pursuant to the THRA is identical to the analysis used for Title VII claims.” (quoting Bailey v.
USF Holland, Inc., 526 F.3d 880, 885 n.1 (6th Cir. 2008))).3
To show discrimination based on sex, a plaintiff can rely on either direct or circumstantial
evidence of discrimination based on their membership in the protected class. See McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); George v. Youngstown State Univ., 966 F.3d
446, 459 (6th Cir. 2020). “Direct evidence is that evidence which, if believed, requires the
conclusion that unlawful discrimination was at least a motivating factor in the employer’s action.”
Peeples v. City of Detroit, 891 F.3d 622, 633 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Rowan v. Lockheed Martin
Energy Sys. Inc., 360 F.3d 544, 548 (6th Cir. 2004)). In this case, Plaintiff does not cite or claim
to rely on direct evidence of discrimination for any of her claims, so the McDonnell Douglas

framework applies.
Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, (1) the plaintiff must first establish a prima
facie case of discrimination; (2) the burden then shifts to the defendant to produce a legitimate,
non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action; and (3) finally, the burden returns
to the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s stated reason is pretextual. George, 966 F.3d at 558.
To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show (1) “she was a
member of a protected class,” (2) “she suffered an adverse employment action”; (3) “she was

3 The analysis of each of Plaintiff’s THRA claims is the same as for her corresponding Title VII
claims. Accordingly, the Court will not separately analyze the THRA claims.
qualified for the position”; and (4) “she was replaced by someone outside the protected class or
was treated differently than similarly-situated, non-protected employees.” Briggs v. Univ. of
Cincinnati, 11 F.4th 498, 508 (6th Cir. 2021).
Defendants’ position is that Plaintiff resigned and cannot show she was constructively

discharged; therefore, she cannot establish the “adverse employment action” element of her
discrimination claim.4
1. Constructive discharge
As Defendants acknowledge, a “constructive discharge” can constitute an adverse
employment action for the purposes of Title VII. See Hurtt v. Int’l Servs., Inc., 627 F. App’x 414,
419-20 (6th Cir. 2015). “To demonstrate a constructive discharge, the plaintiff must show that (1)
the employer deliberately created intolerable working conditions, as perceived by a reasonable
person; (2) the employer did so with the intention of forcing the employee to quit; and (3) the
employee actually quit.” Id. at 420 (citing Savage v. Gee, 665 F.3d 732, 739 (6th Cir. 2012)).5

4 As far as the Court can tell, Plaintiff’s claims in this case are based only on the cumulative nature
of Defendants’ acts. That is, she does not claim that any single investigation or action by
Defendants constitutes discrimination or retaliation; nor does she claim that any single act created
a hostile work environment. The Court notes that Plaintiff was not disciplined in connection with
any complaints received or investigations initiated after September 2020 when Smith first reported
the 2016 incident to CPD, although several investigations were pending when she resigned [see
Doc. 36-19].

5 In Tchankpa v. Ascena Retail Group, Inc., 951 F.3d 805, 815-17 (6th Cir. 2020), the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit noted the subjective intent element of a constructive-
discharged-based claim may have been eliminated in Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547 (2016). The
Court’s holding herein is based on Plaintiff’s inability to show intolerable workplace conditions,
and not on whether Defendants acted specifically with the intent that Plaintiff quit. Accordingly,
it is unnecessary to address whether Green, in fact, eliminated this element. Notably, Plaintiff
advocates the continued application of the intent-to-quit element, despite also citing Green [see
Doc. 38 at Page ID # 457-58]. In addition, Green still requires a “nexus” between the intolerable
workplace and the alleged basis for discrimination. Tchankpa, 951 F.3d at 816; see also id. at 817
n.3 (“No matter what, employees need to show that the offending workplace is somehow
discriminatory.”).
The Sixth Circuit has described a claim of constructive discharge as “difficult to prove,” and a
“tough row to hoe,” noting “[t]he doctrine does not protect employees who leave their job in
apprehension that conditions may deteriorate later”; rather, “employees are expected to stay on the
job if they can pursue other forms of relief.” Groening v. Glen Lake Cmty. Schs., 884 F.3d 626,

630 (6th Cir. 2018) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
As mentioned, Plaintiff’s claims are based at least in part on CPD’s investigations into her
on-the-job conduct. Nevertheless, it is well-established that “employers are permitted to
investigate their employees for wrongdoing[.]” Id. at 631; see also Dendinger v. Ohio, 207 F.
App’x 521, 527 (6th Cir. 2006) (“We have repeatedly held, however, that neither an internal
investigation into suspected wrongdoing by an employee nor that employee’s placement on paid
administrative leave pending the outcome of such an investigation constitutes an adverse
employment action.”). Plaintiff contends “there was a significant increase in the number of
investigations” into her conduct following her allegations against Smith [Doc. 38 at Page ID # 453
(emphasis added)]. She writes: “For instance, Plaintiff became the subject of eight IA

investigations between October 2020 and her constructive discharge in May 2021.” [Id.]. Plaintiff
cites her CPD IA “Officer Resume” [Doc. 36-19]. However, a review of Plaintiff’s IA Officer
Resume reflects that six of the eight investigations Plaintiff relies on were initiated by citizen
complaints; another investigation followed an incident wherein Plaintiff and another officer both
shot a suspect multiple times, and the suspect ultimately died [see Doc. 36-27]; and during the
eighth incident, Plaintiff referred to or called a CPD male officer a b**ch, fa**ot, and pu**y, and
asked the officer if he “was going to cry” and if he “needed a chaplain,” all in front of a citizen,
after the citizen discovered the dead body of his “acquaintance” in a homeless camp [Doc. 36-8 at
Page ID # 198-99; Doc. 36-33].
Plaintiff also complains the eight investigations were carried out by IA as opposed to
“Chain of Command,” which Plaintiff contends was inappropriate and discriminatory. The record
reflects four of the six citizen-complaint-related investigations were carried out at least partially
as Chain of Command investigations, even if IA initially received the citizen complaints,

consistent with CPD policy, or if IA conducted an interview at some point in the process [see Doc.
36-28 at Page ID # 377-79 (IA # 2020-102, December 12, 2020 incident); Doc. 36-29 at Page ID
# 393-97 (IA # 2021-005, January 11, 2021 incident); Doc. 36-30 & Doc. 36-8 at Page ID # 189-
90 (IA # 2021-031, February 10, 2021 incident); Doc. 36-31 & Doc. 36-8 at Page ID # 193-95 (IA
# 2021-040, April 17, 2021 incident); see also Doc. 36-10 at Page ID # 210-213 (describing CPD
procedures for processing complaints against officers and role of IA versus Chain of Command)].6
The two citizen-complaint-related investigations that do not appear to have involved Chain of
Command were resolved in Plaintiff’s favor as “non-formalized” early in the process, seemingly
after only the “pre-review summary” was completed by IA [see Doc. 36-1 & Doc. 36-2 (IA # NF
2021-008, January 19, 2021 incident); Doc. 36-14 & Doc. 36-17 (IA # NF 2021-032, January 13,

2019 incident, but citizen complaint was received two years later)]. The shooting-related
investigation and the eighth incident involving the confrontation between Plaintiff and another
officer were both classified as Class I Offenses, which CPD policy directs “shall” be the

6 Plaintiff was asked during her deposition whether she knew Chain of Command had been
involved and made findings and recommendations regarding how Plaintiff should be disciplined.
Plaintiff indicated she was not aware of such involvement by Chain of Command [see Doc. 36-8
at Page ID # 189-90 & Page ID # 193-94].
responsibility of IA [see Doc. 36-10 at Page ID # 211].7 Plaintiff does not cite to any facts in the
record indicating the involvement of IA was improper or resulted in any heightened scrutiny or
untoward discipline.
Thus, even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the alleged “uptick” in

investigations does not demonstrate Defendants created working conditions that were so
intolerable that any reasonable person would have resigned. Plaintiff cites to nothing in the record
beyond her own conclusory deposition testimony that “IA was piling up IA investigations,” and
perhaps some comments from her sergeant, which are addressed below, to support her contention
that these investigations were inappropriately commenced or conducted due to her sex [Doc. 36-8
at Page ID # 200]. Harassing conduct in the workplace “counts towards a showing of intolerable
conditions only to the extent that [it] is based on a discriminatory motive or animus.” See Benitez
v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-00491, 2022 WL 1283087, at *39 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 28,
2022) (citations omitted). In this case, if anything, there was an uptick in citizen complaints about
Plaintiff’s behavior, which IA received pursuant to CPD policy and then responded to by

investigating in conjunction with Plaintiff’s Chain of Command or by dismissing as non-
formalized. No reasonable juror could conclude that the citizen complaints themselves resulted
from Defendants’ animus toward Plaintiff, and Plaintiff has failed to show how these
investigations were handled in a discriminatory manner. During this same general time, Plaintiff

7 Plaintiff complains she was “also being disciplined and reprimanded for petty or minor
infractions” after she came forward with the rape allegations in September 2020 and before she
resigned in May 2021 [Doc. 38 at Page ID 453]. However, Plaintiff’s IA Officer Resume indicates
she was only disciplined for one offense during this time. That discipline was in connection with
conduct that occurred in June 2019 and an investigation that occurred in November 2019 [see Doc.
36-19 at Page ID # 250 (IA # COC 2019-134)]. The investigation was completed by Chain of
Command [see Doc. 36-23]. Plaintiff was found to have obtained arrest warrants for the wrong
person, and the discipline she received was “written counseling” [id.; see also Doc. 36-19 at Page
ID # 250].
was involved in a fatal shooting of a suspect and engaged in a pejorative and offensive name-
calling clash with another officer in front of a citizen. No reasonable juror could conclude that
mandatory IA investigations into these undisputedly serious incidents resulted from Defendants’
discriminatory animus.

It appears the gravamen of Plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim (and her other claims)
arises from the investigations addressed above. However, Plaintiff makes several other allegations
and arguments that bear on the question of whether she was constructively discharged,8 which the
Court addresses below.
Plaintiff contends the “highest ranks of CPD” exchanged emails which “showed that they
wanted Plaintiff’s supervisors to routinely check and monitor her engagements,” and that “high
ranking CPD officers” exchanged emails indicating they “were glad to have gotten rid of Plaintiff.”
[Doc. 38 at Page ID # 453-54 (citing emails allegedly located at Doc. 38-3 at Bates stamp #000213
& #000217)]. Plaintiff cites to two emails that the Court has been unable to locate anywhere in
the record. Regardless, routine “checks” by Plaintiff’s supervisors hardly indicate any sort of

nefarious plan to create an intolerable work environment. See Sullivan v. Hosp. Auth. of Metro.
Gov’t of Nashville, No. 3:14-cv-00756, 2016 WL 1259559, at *6 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 28, 2016)
(holding that “heightened scrutiny . . . is insufficient to establish an objectively intolerable work
environment.” (citing Ford v. Gen. Motors Corp., 305 F.3d 545, 554 (6th Cir. 2002))). Plaintiff
quotes from the second alleged email, claiming Assistant Chief Scruggs stated to Chief Roddy
“that he would foot the bill for any potential missing gear from Plaintiff ‘if it means not exposing

8 “[W]hether a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign depends on the facts of each
case, but [courts] consider several factors, including but not limited to, reduction in salary and
badgering, harassment, or humiliation by the employer calculated to encourage the employee's
resignation.” Lee v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 676 F. App’x 488, 495 (6th Cir. 2017) (citation
omitted). Plaintiff has not alleged any reduction in salary, reassignment of job duties, or the like.
anyone else from our agency to additional exposure to Mrs. Rogers.’” [Doc. 38 at Page ID # 454].
Even if this does show “disdain,” as Plaintiff claims [id.], it does not demonstrate an intolerable
work environment. If anything, it shows leadership wanted to avoid additional problems with
Plaintiff, not create them. See Okakpu-Mbah v. Postmaster Gen., No. 21-2811, 2022 WL 3928534,

at *4 (6th Cir. Aug. 31, 2022) (“And ‘rumors, conclusory allegations and subjective beliefs . . . are
wholly insufficient evidence to establish a claim of discrimination as a matter of law.’” (quoting
Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 584-85 (6th Cir. 1992))).
Accordingly, the alleged quotations from the emails—even if accepted as accurate
although not provided to the Court—do not salvage Plaintiff’s claim. In addition, Plaintiff does
not suggest that she was aware of these alleged emails at the time of her resignation, so the emails
themselves cannot be said to have contributed to any intolerable working conditions from
Plaintiff’s perspective. See Groening, 884 F.3d at 630 (board president’s complaints about
plaintiff-employee’s performance “can hardly be said to have created intolerable working
conditions” where plaintiff-employee was not aware of them until she filed suit and discovery

commenced (citation omitted)).
Plaintiff also cites to her deposition testimony regarding a conversation she had with her
sergeant (“Sgt. Forbes”) on April 19, 2021. According to her testimony, Sgt. Forbes expressed to
Plaintiff that he was required to “come talk” to Plaintiff, “but he thought it was all bulls**t of how
[she] was being treated but when he was tasked to do something, he had to come talk to [her].”
[Doc. 38-2 at Page ID # 485]. The conversation was memorialized by Sgt. Forbes in a memo he
drafted that same day:
On 4/19/2021 I, Sgt. George Forbes #893 spoke with Officer
Sarah Rogers #765 regarding the Blue Team alert that she received.
Officer Rogers was asked if there was anything that she needed as
in counseling or EAP. Officer Rogers advised that she did not need
any of that type of assistance. Officer Rogers cited that she is
frustrated with some of the things that are happening at the present
time with the department. As her supervisor, I am concerned with
her frustration over some of the issues that she is having within the
department, but is unable to talk about. Furthermore Officer Rogers
and [I] spoke about the circumstances of what triggered the alert.
Upon review of the circumstances I do not see that there are any
issues with her actions or behavior. Officer Rogers was receptive
with the dialogue that we had and continues to be a valuable member
of this team.

[Doc. 36-32].
The vague assertion that Sgt. Forbes thought the investigations were “bulls**t,” which he
expressed only in a private conversation to Plaintiff, also does not change the Court’s analysis.
The same is true for Plaintiff’s testimony that Sgt. Forbes stated, “I’ve never seen IA go after
somebody so bad over an investigation.” [Doc. 36-8 at Page ID # 202]. Accepting that Sgt. Forbes
made these statements as Plaintiff claims, his subjective beliefs about the investigations are
insufficient. See Okakpu-Mbah, 2022 WL 3928534, at *6 (supervisor’s testimony that plaintiff
was fired “in part because of her race” and that white employees “were treated better” held
insufficient for discrimination claims to survive summary judgment in absence of other supporting
evidence and specific examples).
It is not clear whether Plaintiff intended to support her discrimination/constructive
discharge claim with Officer Blevins’s alleged threat that he would not provide backup to Plaintiff.
To the extent she is, and accepting as true that Officer Blevins made the threat, Plaintiff cites to no
proof in the record that she complained about the threat to anyone prior to her resignation or that
Defendants were otherwise aware of and tolerated the threat prior to her resignation. See, e.g.,
Davis v. Crescent Elec. Supply Co., 200 F. Supp. 3d 875, 894-95 (D.S.D. 2016) (to establish
constructive discharge, employee “must show that she gave her employer a reasonable opportunity
to remedy a problem before the employee quit” (citing Sanders v. Lee Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 669
F.3d 888, 893 (8th Cir. 2012)); Porter v. Erie Foods Int’l, Inc. 576 F.3d 629, 639-40 (7th Cir.
2009) (holding that “the constructive discharge test sets a high bar in order to give an employer an
opportunity to address the situation before an employee resigns”). The only proof in the record
the Court could find regarding CPD leadership’s knowledge of such a threat, or more accurately

lack thereof, consists of the affidavit of Major Jonathan Chambers and the affidavit of Sgt. Patrick
Hubbard. Both affidavits state: “I am not aware of any allegations made by Plaintiff during her
employment that other male officers failed to respond as backup to traffic stops in retaliation for
her claims of sexual assault against another cadet.” [Doc. 36-9 & Doc. 36-12]. Plaintiff does not
cite to any evidence in the record to dispute these sworn statements.
Plaintiff also complains the IA investigation into the 2016 incident caused her “humiliation,
[and] embarrassment.” [Doc. 38 at Page ID # 450]. She characterizes her initial interview by Sgt.
Willoughby and Sgt. Taylor as a “bombard[ment]” that she was “completely blindsided by.” [Id.].
She claims it amounted to “harassment by IA” [id.]. In her deposition, she testified that during the
interview one of the sergeants told her she could be charged with “a felony for extortion.” [Doc.

38-2 at Page ID # 480]. She also cites a suggestion, made by Captain Nathan Vaughn, that Plaintiff
mediate or discuss the 2016 incident with Smith as being part of a “pattern of insensitivity towards
the incident and Plaintiff” [Doc. 38 at Page ID # 451].
Accepting Plaintiff’s account as true, a surprise interview and any suggestion that a rape
victim mediate with her alleged rapist is reasonably viewed as insensitive and inappropriate.
However, Plaintiff surely knew an investigation would be underway once Smith reported the 2016
incident at her request. It was entirely reasonable for IA to seek out an interview with her as she
was one of the three individuals present during the incident, and the initial stages of the
investigation resulted in a recommendation of serious charges against Smith. Any notion that
Plaintiff could be charged with “extortion” in connection with the 2016 incident appears to be
wholly inappropriate. However, Plaintiff was notified three weeks later (long before her
resignation) that any statements she made during the IA investigation, or evidence discovered as a
result of her statements, “can never be used against [her] in any criminal proceeding; except for

perjury or false swearing in a subsequent court case.” [Doc. 38-2 at Page ID # 513]. See Weigold
v. ABC Appliance Co., 105 F. App’x 702, 708-09 (6th Cir. 2004) (inappropriate comments
regarding employee’s exercise of FMLA rights found not to constitute constructive discharge due
to their “fleeting nature”). As for the mediation suggestion, it appears to have been made to
counsel, and not directly to Plaintiff, which eased any coercive or insulting impact.9 Moreover,
Plaintiff does not claim she was ever forced to directly communicate with Smith concerning the
2016 incident. It further bears noting that Plaintiff herself confronted Smith in 2020 to discuss the
incident and how they would both move forward.
Finally, Plaintiff appears to take umbrage at CPD’s decision to excuse her from “line-ups,”
presumably meaning a regular meeting of all officers in a given district. Plaintiff fails to address

why this contributes to an intolerable workplace given that her attorney requested this very
accommodation. Granted, the request was made as one of two alternatives, but the email plainly
indicates Plaintiff would accept either option:
I am writing to make one request. She would request that
she not be required to appear in line up with Officer Smith. She
does not feel she should be moved to another line up under the
circumstances. If he is not moved, she would request to be allowed
to not appear at line up until this matter is sorted out and a decision
is made. . . .

I would appreciate you considering this as an alternative to
the present situation.

9 Plaintiff retained different counsel in connection with the instant lawsuit.
[Doc. 38-2 at Page ID # 517]. Plaintiff does not contend that she ever objected to this
accommodation or declined to accept it.
Accordingly, the Court finds that even when the evidence of record is viewed in the light
most favorable to Plaintiff and all reasonable inferences are made in her favor, there is insufficient
evidence for a reasonable juror to find Defendants created working conditions so intolerable that
any reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign. This is true even when the cumulative
effect of the foregoing evidence is considered. The Court’s “job is to confirm that the plaintiff’s
work conditions were indeed hellish, or at least close to it,” and this is not such a case. Tchankpa,
951 F.3d at 815 (in ADA case, holding plaintiff was not constructively discharged despite his

employer “(1) forcing him to lift heavy laptops despite his shoulder injury; (2) denying his work-
from-home request; (3) threatening to fire him; (4) giving other employees preferential treatment;
and (5) giving him unwarranted negative feedback”). As a result, the Court finds Plaintiff cannot
establish she was constructively discharged. She has not otherwise alleged or cited to proof of an
adverse employment action based on her sex, and therefore she has not met her burden of stating
a prima facie case of sex-based discrimination under Title VII or the THRA. Defendants are
entitled to summary judgment on these claims based on the record before the Court and the
arguments made by the parties.10
B. Retaliation
Under both Title VII and the THRA, “an employee may bring an action against an

employer for retaliating against individuals who oppose a discriminatory practice,” and “[c]laims
under the respective laws are evaluated identically.” Kirkland v. City of Maryville, 54 F. 4th 901,
910 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-301(a); Bailey v. USF Holland, Inc.,
526 F.3d 880, 885 n.1 (6th Cir. 2008)). Like a discrimination claim, a retaliation claim follows
the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Yazdian v. ConMed Endoscopic Techs., Inc.,
793 F.3d 634, 649 (6th Cir. 2015). To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, a
plaintiff must show: “(1) [s]he engaged in a protected activity; (2) [her] exercise of such a protected
activity was known by the defendant; (3) the defendant subsequently took an action that was
materially adverse to the plaintiff; and (4) a causal connection existed between the protected

10 Although not directly addressed by the parties, the Court also notes that Plaintiff failed to show
she was treated differently than similarly situated, non-protected employees. While she states she
“was being disciplined and reprimanded for petty or minor infractions while her assailant was left
undisciplined for such an egregious action []” [Doc. 38 at Page ID # 453], Plaintiff does not allege
that IA failed to investigate Smith for conduct similar to the conduct Plaintiff was investigated for
in the incidents listed above. It appears her only argument is that he was not disciplined for the
alleged rape in 2016. However, the charges against Smith were ultimately “not sustained,” [Doc.
38-2 at Page ID # 532-33], meaning the “investigation failed to produce a preponderance of the
evidence to either prove or disprove the allegation[.]” [Doc. 36-10 at Page ID # 212]. If Plaintiff
claims she was subjected to discipline for charges ultimately “not sustained,” that is not clear from
her arguments or the factual record. Comparators must be “nearly identical” in “all relevant
aspects” of their employment. Humenny v. Genex Corp., 390 F.3d 901, 906 (6th Cir. 2004)
(citations omitted). “Differences in job title, responsibilities, experience, and work record can be
used to determine whether two employees are similarly situated.” Leadbetter v. Gilley, 385 F.3d
683, 691 (6th Cir. 2004). In Okakpu, the Sixth Circuit further held that two employees who both
receive “negative reviews” are not necessarily similar situated; “instead, the review must concern
similar work issues.” 2022 WL 3928534, at *5 (citing Colvin v. VA Med. Ctr., 390 F. App’x 454,
458-59 (6th Cir. 2010)). Plaintiff points to no such proof.
activity and the materially adverse action.” Briggs v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 11 F. 4th 498, 514 (6th
Cir. 2021) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
A “materially adverse action” is one that “might [] dissuade[] a reasonable worker from
making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Rogers v. Henry Ford Health Sys., 897 F.3d

763, 775-76 (6th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Plaintiff’s “burden of establishing a materially
adverse employment action is less onerous in the retaliation context” than in the discrimination
context. Laster v. City of Kalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714, 731 (6th Cir. 2014). Nevertheless, to be
materially adverse, the retaliation must “produce[] an injury or harm.” Taylor v. Geithner, 703
F.3d 328, 336 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53,
67 (2006)). To establish the causal connection element, Plaintiff must “demonstrate that her
engagement in a ‘protected activity was a but-for cause of the alleged adverse action by the
employer.’” McGarity v. Birmingham Public Schools, No. 20-2176, 2021 WL 4568050, at *5 (6th
Cir. Sept. 7, 2021) (quoting Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 362 (2013)).
“Assigning but-for causation to the retaliation depends on whether the employer would have taken

the same adverse action in the absence of the protected conduct.” McGarity, 2021 WL 4568050,
at *5 (citing Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., 557 U.S. 167, 176 (2009)).
It appears Plaintiff relies on the same proof addressed above in connection with her
retaliation claim. The Court need not repeat the above discussion of this proof. It suffices to note
that, first, no reasonable juror could find a causal connection between Plaintiff’s allegations against
Smith and the eight post-September 2020 investigations she relies on in support of her claims. The
majority of these were initiated as a result of citizen complaints, and despite Plaintiff’s allegations,
the record reflects they involved her Chain of Command and she was not disciplined as a result of
these investigations prior to her resignation. Cf. Hubbell v. FedEx SmartPost, Inc., 933 F.3d 558,
570 (6th Cir. 2019) (affirming denial of employer’s Rule 50 motion where employee was subjected
to nonstop supervision paired with constant write-ups for minor infractions such as for “unexcused
absences even when she provided doctor’s notes excusing these absences,” and employee was
ultimately fired).11 See Sutton v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., No. 3:21 CV 962, 2023 WL

4564385, at *8-10 (N.D. Ohio July 17, 2023) (granting summary judgment on employee’s
retaliation claim where investigations into employee’s conduct “caused frustration and stress” but
employee received no discipline as a result of the investigations). The remaining two
investigations concerned Class I allegations against Plaintiff, which CPD requires to be
investigated by IA. Nothing in the record beyond Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations suggests the
investigations were initiated or mishandled due to Plaintiff’s allegations against Smith or her sex.
Plaintiff does emphasize that the alleged uptick in investigations occurred after she
confronted Smith and he reported the 2016 incident to IA at her insistence in early September
2020. True, “more frequent disciplinary writeups of plaintiff for trivial matters and unwarranted
criticism of plaintiff’s work” have been held to be “sufficient, ‘[w]hen viewed as a whole,’ to

‘support the jury’s finding that defendants retaliated against plaintiff.’” Hubbell, 933 F.3d at 570.
(quoting Moore v. Kuka Welding Sys., 171 F.3d 1073, 1080 (6th Cir. 1999)). Likewise, being
subjected to unjustified disciplinary writeups that eventually result in termination may suffice to
support a finding of retaliation. Id. Plaintiff’s case, however, does not rise to this level.

11 Neither party cites to nor relies on Hubbell. In Hubbell, the circumstantial evidence established
but-for causation. After the plaintiff explicitly disagreed with her employer’s opinions about
women, her employer “took several actions that made her job harder.” 933 F.3d at 563. Hubbell
also differs from this case because the plaintiff had never been cited for disciplinary reasons until
after her protected activity. Id. The employer’s statements in Hubbell were also more indicative
of animus as the employer suggested that women were better suited for administrative roles and
that the plaintiff would have a difficult time at the company if she did not take a demotion. Id.
In this case, the first-in-time investigation Plaintiff relies on involves a fatal shooting and
Plaintiff does not contend the investigation into this incident was retaliatory [see Doc. 36-8 at Page
ID # 182]. The record reflects Plaintiff was treated the same as the other officer involved, Officer
Joseph Ogg [see Doc. 36-27 at Page ID # 357]. The next investigation was based on an incident

that occurred on December 12, 2020, and was reported to IA via a citizen complaint on December
15, 2020 [see Doc. 36-19 at Page ID # 251]. Because of the three-month gap, Plaintiff cannot rely
on “temporal proximity” to establish the causal connection element. This is especially true
considering there is no dispute the investigation was initiated only because of a citizen complaint.
See Kenney v. Aspen Techs., Inc., 965 F.3d 443, 448-50 (6th Cir. 2020) (finding that a “roughly
75-day delay” between plaintiff-employee’s “protected activity and an adverse employment action
is not, standing alone, a convincing case for proving causation,” and that “other indicia to support
a causal connection . . . are lacking”; further finding that complaints against the plaintiff-employee
constitute intervening cause that “dispels any inference of causation”). In addition, Plaintiff does
not contend the pre-September 2020 investigations involved conduct similar to the conduct at issue

in the post-September 2020 allegations, or that the conduct at issue in the post-September 2020
investigations had previously been tolerated. See id. (holding that “heightened scrutiny is reflected
by a similar three-step pattern: an employee engages in conduct that, while technically
objectionable, is blessed, or at least tolerated, by the employer; the employee engages in protected
activity; the employer then takes an adverse action against the employee for conduct the employer
had previously allowed”).
Furthermore, there is no proof Plaintiff complained about Officer Blevins’s alleged threat
or that Plaintiff’s supervisors or CPD leadership were otherwise aware of the alleged threat prior
to Plaintiff’s resignation. See Garcia v. Beaumont Health Royal Oak Hosp., No. 22-1186, 2022
WL 5434558, at *7-8 (6th Cir. Oct. 7, 2022) (holding that to establish coworker retaliation claim,
plaintiff-employee must show “supervisors or members of management have actual or constructive
knowledge of the coworker’s retaliatory behavior, and . . . supervisors or members of management
have condoned, tolerated, or encouraged the acts of retaliation, or have responded to the plaintiff’s

complaints so inadequately that the response manifests indifference or unreasonableness under the
circumstances,” and noting “this claim is not easily established”).
The IA investigation into the 2016 incident—including the interview with Sgt. Willoughby
and Sgt. Taylor, the extortion comment, the mediation comment, and the excusal from “line-
ups”—likewise does not constitute a materially adverse action. Again, Plaintiff requested the
excusal from line-up and the record does not reflect that she objected to this treatment at any point.
Although the interview regarding the 2016 incident blindsided Plaintiff and caused her distress
and the extortion comment was unfortunate, Plaintiff cites to no authority or proof in the record
that the interview “injured” her or that it was so offensive it would have persuaded any reasonable
worker from coming forward with the allegations. See Mason v. City of Livonia, No. 06-14032,

2008 WL 880191, at *9-10 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2008) (defendant-employer entitled to summary
judgment on title VII retaliation claim; finding plaintiff-employee’s evidence that her supervisor
threatened her after she filed EEOC complaint was insufficient).
Plaintiff cites to Wexler v. White’s Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2003), to
argue:
The reasonableness of the decisions by the employer “is critical in
determining whether the proffered judgment was the employer’s
actual motivation” and therefore, it should be left to the factfinder
to determine whether the actions taken by [CPD] were reasonable or
whether they were a pretext for discrimination and an attempt to
have Plaintiff resign.

[Doc. 38 at Page ID # 459 (quoting Wexler, 317 F.3d at 577)].
Wexler is distinguishable. For one, the portion of Wexler Plaintiff relies on relates to
pretext, the second step in the McDonnell Douglas framework. The facts are also very different
in Wexler. The plaintiff-employee in that case alleged he was demoted due to his age. He
presented proof of statements made by the president and vice-president of the defendant-employer

that the plaintiff “was getting older,” and that the company was “going to really be grinding their
managers in the future,” which the plaintiff would not “want to be doing,” as well as references to
the plaintiff as “a bearded, grumpy old man,” “pops,” and “old man.” Wexler, 317 F.3d at 570-
71. The president also made “repeated references . . . to the youth of [the plaintiff’s] replacement”
in the same discussion of the plaintiff’s age. Id. at 570. The employer presented proof of declining
sales as its explanation for the plaintiff’s demotion, but the plaintiff produced evidence “showing
that the management . . . knew that the company’s advertising strategy had hurt sales throughout
the chain,” and further that another younger manager was not demoted “despite similarly dismal
profits.” Id. at 577. The district court dismissed the case on the employer’s motion for summary
judgment and the judgment was reversed on appeal. The Sixth Circuit found a reasonable juror

could find that the plaintiff’s individual poor sales performance “was insufficient” to warrant his
demotion based on the age-related comments and the chain-wide decrease in sales. Id. The Sixth
Circuit further found the retention of the younger manager with poor sales “undermines the
explanation that store revenue is critical to a store manager’s job security.” Id. The case at bar
bears no factual similarities at all, and Plaintiff fails to address the stark differences between her
own proof and the proof presented by the Wexler plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie claim of retaliation,
even when the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to her and all reasonable inferences are
made in her favor. No reasonable juror could find that Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the 2016
incident were the but-for cause of the eight investigations she relies on in her brief. The remaining
facts Plaintiff relies on likewise do not show a materially adverse action, considered separately or
together with the investigations. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on
Plaintiff’s retaliation claims.

C. Hostile Work Environment
It is not clear whether Plaintiff intends to assert a separate claim for hostile work
environment or if her allegations of a hostile work environment are part of her retaliation claim.
Regardless, to establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment, she must show the
following:
(1) [she] belongs to a protected class; (2) she was subject to
unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on [her
membership in the protected class]; (4) the harassment affected a
term, condition, or privilege of employment; and (5) the defendant
knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take
action.

Phillips v. UAW Int’l, 854 F.3d 323, 327 (6th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
The standards for proving a hostile work environment claim are not as stringent as the
standards for proving a constructive discharge. See Laster, 746 F.3d at 728. Nevertheless,
Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim fails for the same reasons discussed throughout this
opinion. That is, Plaintiff points to no proof in the record that the investigations were initiated or
conducted as a result of Plaintiff’s sex, as opposed to as a result of complaints made against
Plaintiff and/or the serious nature of the conduct leading to the investigations (fatal
shooting/confrontation with fellow officer in front of civilian). She has not produced any direct
evidence of sex-specific, derogatory language; and as discussed above, she has not demonstrated
that her alleged harassers treated male officers differently when faced with similar allegations. See
Williams v. CSX Transp. Co., 643 F.3d 502, 511 (6th Cir. 2011) (discussing methods of
establishing the “based on” element of a hostile work environment claim). The same is true for
the alleged emails between high-ranking CPD officials, Officer Blevins’s alleged threats, and the
way the IA investigation into the alleged rape was carried out.
In addition, it does not appear Plaintiff was aware of the CPD emails prior to her

resignation. And Plaintiff does not contend she reported Blevins’s threats to her supervisors or
CPD leadership prior to her resignation, such that Defendants cannot be said to have known about
the threats and failed to act. The Court need not belabor these points further. Even if Plaintiff is
attempting to, she cannot establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment based on her
sex, even when the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to her and all reasonable inferences
are made in her in favor. To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim for hostile work
environment separate from her retaliation claim, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. 36] is
GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims are hereby DISMISSED in their entirety. AN

APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER.
SO ORDERED.

s/Susan K. Lee
SUSAN K. LEE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10435599. Public record. Not legal advice.