Case: 17-14706 Date Filed: 04/18/2019 Page: 1 of 14 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-14706 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:16-cv-01355-JEO LUCILLE YVETTE ARRINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ALABAMA POWER COMPANY, SOUTHERN COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ________________________ (April 18, 2019) Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-14706 Date Filed: 04/18/2019 Page: 2 of 14 Plaintiff Lucille Yvette Arrington, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of her claims for discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), as well as her personal injury claim for “workplace hazard.” On appeal, Plaintiff recounts the events that led to her alleged constructive discharge and asserts that she established a prima facie case of retaliation.1 After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the district court. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, an African-American woman, filed the present suit in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging claims against Defendant Alabama Power Company. 2 Upon Defendant’s motion, the case was transferred to the Northern District of Alabama. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and afforded her twenty-one days to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint in which she characterized her claims as “Title VII, ADA discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment, 1 Plaintiff further suggests the magistrate judge who presided over her case had a conflict of interest. We find this allegation meritless. 2 Plaintiff also asserted claims against Southern Company, Defendant’s parent company. The district court later dismissed Southern Company as a defendant. Plaintiff does not challenge this ruling on appeal. 2 Case: 17-14706 Date Filed: 04/18/2019 Page: 3 of 14 retaliation, FMLA, workplace hazard.” She asserted that Defendant retaliated against her for reporting a white male’s violations of company policy, discriminated against her based on her race and transferred her to a “hostile and harassing work environment,” blocked her from obtaining a new position, caused her to develop asthma, removed her from her supervisory role, gave her unmerited low performance ratings and negative referrals, demoted her, and subjected her to “harassing comments and actions.” In particular, Plaintiff alleged that in October 2013, she “reported [a white male coworker’s] sexually explicit policy violations.” She asserted that the “retaliation and discrimination began” one month later, when she was transferred from her supervisor position at Defendant’s Metro Central office to a supervisor position at Defendant’s Columbiana office—a rural, all-white office with a history of racism. The employee who decided to transfer Plaintiff explained, “Going to Columbiana will allow you to function as a Manager being totally responsible for all aspects of the office.” Plaintiff received a pay raise based on her performance at the Metro Central office. After ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals