Armstrong v. Advocacy Center for Persons With Disabilities, Inc. , 167 F. App'x 110 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                          [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    FILED
    ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    February 10, 2006
    No. 05-14706
    THOMAS K. KAHN
    Non-Argument Calendar                 CLERK
    ________________________
    D. C. Docket No. 04-00047-CV-4-WS-WCS
    JEANNE ARMSTRONG,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    ADVOCACY CENTER FOR PERSONS
    WITH DISABILITIES, INC.,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Florida
    _________________________
    (February 10, 2006)
    Before DUBINA, HULL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Plaintiff-Appellant Jeanne Armstrong appeals the district court’s grant of
    summary judgment in favor of the employer in her sexual harassment action.
    Armstrong worked for several years at the Advocacy Center for Persons
    with Disabilities, Inc. (the “Center”) under the supervision of Steve Howells.
    Armstrong testified in her deposition that Howells engaged in the following
    conduct: He subjected her to unwarranted criticism and was generally difficult to
    work with; he sometimes addressed her as “honey,” “sweetheart” and “baby”; he
    occasionally touched her shoulders, caressed her back, gave her back rubs, hugged
    her, and asked her to smell his cologne; he told her sexually explicit and
    inappropriate stories on a business trip they took together; and he discussed his
    wife in a derogatory fashion.
    Despite her concerns, Armstrong did not tell Howells that his conduct made
    her uncomfortable, and she failed to mention his inappropriate touching, comments
    or stories in a written complaint, as required by the Center’s harassment policy. At
    one point, she complained verbally to Gary Blumenthal, then Executive Director of
    the Center, that Howells was “over the top” and “too touchy feely.”
    Armstrong filed this action on February 17, 2004, alleging that the Center
    engaged in unlawful disability discrimination, gender discrimination and
    retaliation. On April 4, 2005, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of all
    claims except Armstrong’s claim that she was the victim of sexual harassment.
    2
    The district court then granted summary judgment in favor of the Center on
    Armstrong’s sexual harassment claim, holding: (1) Armstrong failed to properly
    plead a claim for sexual harassment; (2) even if she had properly pleaded a claim
    for sexual harassment, she failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding
    her sexual harassment claim; and (3) in any case, Armstrong failed to demonstrate
    that the Center was not entitled to the defense set forth in Burlington Industries,
    Inc. v. Ellerth, 
    524 U.S. 742
     (1998) and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 
    524 U.S. 775
     (1998). Armstrong appeals from that order.
    We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing
    the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Skrtich v.
    Thorton, 
    280 F.3d 1295
    , 1299 (11th Cir. 2002).
    After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the grant of summary
    judgment for the reasons given in the district court’s careful and well-reasoned
    opinion dated July 22, 2005.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-14706; D.C. Docket 04-00047-CV-4-WS-WCS

Citation Numbers: 167 F. App'x 110

Judges: Dubina, Hull, Kravitch, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 2/10/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023