MEMORANDUM OPINION

R. DAVID PROCTOR, District Judge.

This case is before the court on the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #49) filed by Defendants the State of Alabama Department of Human Resources ("ALDHR") and Jefferson County Department of Human Resources ("JCDHR") on March 8, 2018. The Motion (Doc. #49) is fully briefed and supported by the parties' evidentiary submissions.1 (Docs. #49-52, 56-57). For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #49) is due to be granted in its entirety.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Martreece Bell ("Plaintiff" or "Bell") filed a Second Amended Complaint2 (Doc. #33) in this court on July 21, 2017 alleging racial discrimination in violation of Title VII (Count I), sex discrimination in violation of Title VII (Count II), retaliation in violation of Title VII (Count III), and violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count IV). All claims are asserted against both ALDHR and JCDHR (collectively "Defendants"). (See Doc. #33). Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims because there is no genuine issue of material fact and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Doc. #49, ¶ 6). The court agrees.

II. Relevant Undisputed Facts

The facts set out in this opinion are gleaned from the parties' submissions of facts claimed to be undisputed, their respective responses to those submissions, and the court's own examination of the evidentiary record. All reasonable doubts about the facts have been resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. See Info. Sys. & Networks Corp. v. City of Atlanta, 281 F.3d 1220, 1224 (11th Cir. 2002). These are the "facts" for summary judgment purposes only. They may not be the actual facts that could be established through live testimony at trial. See Cox v. Admr. U.S. Steel & Carnegie Pension Fund, 17 F.3d 1386, 1400 (11th Cir. 1994). Asserted "facts" that are not facts at all will be disregarded. Carter v. Three Springs Residential Treatment, 132 F.3d 635, 642 (11th Cir. 1998) (conclusory allegations without specific supporting facts have no probative value).

A. Plaintiff's Employment at JCDHR

Plaintiff Martreece Bell was appointed to the position of Administrative Support Assistant I (ASA I) at JCDHR effective May 3, 2004. (Doc. #51-1, Bell Personnel File at 1083). Plaintiff regularly scored "Meets Standards" or "Exceeds Standards" on her annual performance appraisals and was promoted to Administrative Support Assistant II (ASA II) on or about May 16, 2007. (Id. at 1058). From May 2007 until August 2015, Plaintiff received "Exceeds Standards" scores on all annual appraisals. (Id. at 1031, 1033, 1036, 1039, 1043, 1046, 1049, 1052, 1055).

Plaintiff regularly worked on the eighth floor of the JCDHR in the child support unit. (Doc. #51-2, Bell Dep. at 50). Tracie Hawkins was her immediate Supervisor. (Doc. #51-3, Heath Dep. at 42; Doc. #51-1, Bell Personnel File at 1031). Yolanda Boleware, who served as the Program Manager over the Child Support Program, was her Reviewing Supervisor. (Doc. #51-5, Witness Statements at 1019; Doc. #51-1, Bell Personnel File at 1031; Doc. #51-7, McClintock Dep. at 15).

B. The August 21, 2015 Incident

On Friday, August 21, 2015, Plaintiff was working the front window of child support on the seventh floor of JCDHR.3 (Doc. #51-2, Bell Dep. at 50-52). While she was working behind the glass in the lobby reception area, Plaintiff was approached by a client, referred to herein as "DS." (Id. at 55). Communicating through the plexiglass that separates employees from clients, DS asked for an application. (Id. at 55, 58). Plaintiff spoke through her microphone and asked DS for picture identification, which is required to receive any services from child support. (Id. at 55). DS responded that she did not have picture identification and according to Plaintiff "started talking loud" and being "rude and obnoxious" because "she did not understand why she needed a picture ID just to receive an application." (Id. at 55, 67; Doc. #51-5, Witness Statements at 1018). Plaintiff "tried to explain [the] policies [of the] department but [DS] would not listen." (Doc. #51-2, Bell Dep. at 56). Plaintiff then turned off her microphone because DS was yelling and notified Program Manager Yolanda Boleware of the situation. (Id. at 56; Doc. #51-5, Witness Statements at 1018).

At approximately 3:00 p.m., Program Supervisor Cassandra Jones was approached in the lobby by DS. (Doc. #51-5, Witness Statements at 1019). DS told Jones that she was having a problem with "the lady at the front desk." (Id.). Jones went to the front desk to ask Plaintiff about the situation. (Id.). Jones reports that she "was told the same thing by Martreece [sic] Bell who was working at the front desk for Child Support. Ms. Bell was very rude with her tone, and her body language. Her exact words to me were `Like I said she has to have an ID to obtain an application, or to see a manager.' I asked the client to have a seat while I tried to contact Child Support Program Manager Yolanda Boleware. Apparently, [Plaintiff] contacted Ms. Boleware because she came down to the front desk before I could call her." (Id. at 1019, 1020).

When Boleware arrived, "the client was still out in the lobby yelling and talking." (Doc. #51-2, Bell Dep. at 57). Boleware turned the microphone back on and Plaintiff explained the situation to Boleware. (Id. at 56-57, 65). Boleware spoke with the client. (Id. at 66). However, after speaking with Boleware the client did not leave the lobby. (Doc. #51-5, Witness Statements at 1018, 1020).

Plaintiff signed out of work at 3:00 p.m. yet continued to work until 4:30 p.m. because no one arrived to relieve her at the child support window. (Doc. #51-2, Bell Dep. at 71, 73). At approximately 4:33 p.m., Plaintiff left work for the day and entered the elevator lobby of the seventh floor. (Id. at 76-77; Doc. #51-4, Video). A few seconds later, DS entered the same elevator lobby with one child on her hip and another small child at her side. (Doc. #51-2, Bell Dep. at 81, 95-96; Doc. #51-4, Video). The events that ensued from that point were captured by a security camera. (Doc. #51-4, Video). The video has no sound. (Id.; Doc. #51-3, Heath Dep. at 28). Plaintiff testified that when she entered the elevator lobby, DS mumbled something and then clearly said, "B**ch, you off the clock now." (Doc. #51-2, Bell Dep. at 80). After some back and forth, the argument escalated. As Plaintiff testified:

(Id. at 81-83).

About a minute after Plaintiff and DS are seen in the elevator lobby together, security guards entered the space. (Doc. #51-2, Bell Dep. at 101-02). One security officer escorted DS downstairs while the other security officer remained with Plaintiff until the Birmingham Police Department arrived. (Doc. #51-5, Witness Statements at 1018). The Birmingham police officer listened to Plaintiff's account and escorted Plaintiff to her car for safety. (Id.). No police report was completed at that time. (Doc. #51-3, Heath Dep. at 21). Security Guard Supervisor Quincharlotte Moulton called Dough Heath, the Assistant Director of the Child Support Unit and Building Services, immediately following the incident. (Id. at 9). Heath was informed that "a client attacked a worker" but that the worker was alright. (Id.).

C. The Investigation of the Incident

On Monday, August 24, 2015 Heath spoke with Boleware about the incident. (Id. at 7, 10-11). Boleware informed Heath that Plaintiff was not at work that Monday because "she was complaining of a shoulder injury or something in regards to the incident." (Id. at 11). Heath explained to Boleware that an internal incident report needed to be completed. (Id.). On the same day, Heath called Angela McClintock, the Director of JCDHR, to inform her of the incident. (Id. at 11-12).

Heath commenced an investigation of the elevator lobby incident because he feared that Defendants might face a lawsuit from DS. (Id. at 13-14, 23; Doc. #51-7, McClintock Dep. at 136). He requested a copy of the surveillance video from the lobby. (Doc. #51-3, Heath Dep. at 13-14). He requested written statements from Jacqueline Wright,4 Quincharlotte Moulton, Sophia Jackson, Cassandra Jones, and Plaintiff Martreece Bell. (Id. at 23-25). He also directed Plaintiff, through Boleware, to make a formal report with the Birmingham Police Department. (Id. at 109).

On August 25, 2015 (the first day Plaintiff returned to work following the incident), at 8:40 a.m., Plaintiff filed a report with the Birmingham Police Department. (Doc. #51-6, Police Report). According to the report, Plaintiff stated to the officer that:

(Id.).

On the same day Plaintiff wrote a statement for JCDHR. In that report, Plaintiff states:

(Doc. #51-5, Witness Statements at 1018).

Quincharlotte Moulton, one of the security officers who witnessed both the window incident and the elevator lobby incident, wrote:

(Id. at 1015-16).

Co-worker Katiua Walker also provided a written statement dated August 25, 2015. Walker wrote:

(Id. at 1020). Heath watched the security video on his desktop computer. (Doc. #51-3, Heath

Dep. at 27-28). After watching the video, he concluded that Plaintiff was endangering DS's children by her reaction to the incident and not behaving in an appropriate manner for a state worker. (Id. at 33, 162-63). He believed that Plaintiff "had ample opportunity to exit the situation and chose not to and actually continued to instigate." (Id. at 35). He did not credit Plaintiff's accounts of the event after viewing the video. (Id. at 176-77).

After reviewing the witness statements and the video, Heath updated Director Angela McClintock on the incident. (Id. at 29, 42). Heath was concerned about inconsistencies he perceived between the statements and the video itself.5 (Id. at 116) ("[t]he statements are not completely indicative of what transpired on the video"). Specifically, Heath noted that Plaintiff stated in the police report that DS "got up against her back," but the video shows Plaintiff with her back up to the elevator wall and DS coming in from Plaintiff's side and front. (Id. at 117-21). During a verbal exchange, the elevator door opens. (Id. at 118-20). No one is blocking Plaintiff's access to elevator, yet she does not get in. (Id. at 119-20). About fourteen seconds later, the incident starts to escalate with Plaintiff and DS seen pointing at each other. (Id. at 120).

After reviewing the video and statements, McClintock,6 Kimberly Camp (JCDHR Personnel Manager), Kelly Lever (ALDHR Personnel Manager), and Heath decided to begin the process to have a charge letter issued to Plaintiff.7 (Id. at 43-45, 150). Charge letters are sent to the ALDHR personnel department for review. (Id. at 41-42, 151). ALDHR "review[s] it, suggest[s] changes to the format, or ask[s] questions for clarification. They staff the case with the legal department." (Id. at 151). Upon completion of that process, the charge letter was issued to Plaintiff. (Id. at 29-30).

D. The Charge Letter and Resulting Termination of Plaintiff's Employment

Under Alabama law, "Merit System Employees" have a statutory interest in their employment and are entitled to due process as it relates to terminations and suspensions. (Doc. #51-9, Ala. Code 1975 § 36-26-27). State employees have the right to request a hearing before the State Personnel Board on the issue of whether they were properly terminated, and the State Personnel Board has the authority to direct a state agency, like JCDHR, to reverse its employment decision and reinstate the employee with lost benefits and wages. (Id.). Some state agencies, like JCDHR, provide an additional layer of due process protection by affording their employees a pre-termination hearing. (Doc. #51-10, Employee Handbook at 452-55). As part of that process, a DHR employee is entitled to a formal "charge letter" setting forth the factual allegations against them and alleged rules violations. (Id. at 452-53). The employee is then provided a hearing in front of a hearing officer who considers the evidence, determines whether the charge letter is supported, and makes appropriate recommendations as to the appropriate level of discipline, if any. (Id. at 455).

Pursuant to this process, Plaintiff was provided with a charge letter on September 30, 2015. (Doc. #51-1, Bell Personnel File at 1027-28). The charge letter sets out as its basis the child support window incident as well as the elevator lobby incident. (Id.). With regard to the window incident:

(Id.).

And, with regard to the elevator lobby incident, the charge letter stated:

(Id.).

The charge further alleges that these incidents violate department rules on "disruptive conduct of any sort," "treatment of clientele," and "conduct unbecoming a state employee." (Id.). The letter sets an Administrative Hearing for review of the charge for October 29, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. (Id. at 1027). The last page of the letter states that: "If evidence supports these charges, it could result in disciplinary action of increasing severity, including suspension up to 30 days in a calendar year, demotion, or termination of employment." (Id. at 1028).

Boleware and Camp were with Plaintiff when she was presented with the charge letter. (Doc. #51-3, Heath Dep. at 123). Plaintiff signed an acknowledgement that she received the charge on September 30, 2015 and said she would resign effective immediately. (Doc. #51-1, Bell Personnel File at 1029; Doc. #51-3, Heath Dep. at 123; Doc. #51-18, Boleware Dep. at 153-54; Doc. #51-2, Bell Dep. at 138). Boleware told Plaintiff that she should go home and take some time and think about it before resigning. (Doc. #51-3, Heath Dep. at 123-24; Doc. #51-18, Boleware Dep. at 153-54). Camp reaffirmed for Plaintiff that she did not have to make a decision about resignation that day.8 (Doc. #51-3, Heath Dep. at 123-24).

With service of the charge letter, Plaintiff was also informed that she was being placed on mandatory annual leave/leave without pay pursuant to Rules of the State Personnel Board, Chapter 670-X-15.06.9 (Doc. #51-12, Mandatory Leave Letter). Heath asked Plaintiff for her badge and key and asked Boleware to escort Plaintiff out of the building. (Doc. #51-3, Heath Dep. at 124).

On October 15, 2015, Plaintiff sent an email to Angela McClintock with copies to Boleware, Hawkins, and Heath. (Doc. #51-1, Bell Personnel File at 1026). The email states:

(Doc. #51-2, Bell Dep. at 147-48; Doc. #51-1, Bell Personnel File at 1026).

Plaintiff understood when she sent this letter that there would be no hearing on October 29. (Doc. #51-2, Bell Dep. at 148). Plaintiff testified that she resigned because she was caring for sick family members, was not sleeping, and she needed to move on and do what she needed to do to provide for her family. (Id. at 149-50). She further testified that she did not think that she was going to get a fair hearing because "most of the black females that I've known that have had a hearing with DHR, it never came out right. They were always fired." (Id. at 151). "I didn't think they were going to listen." (Id. at 152).

III. Analysis

After careful review of the Rule 56 record, the court finds that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #49) is due to be granted. Below, the court discusses the facts presented by the Rule 56 record and evaluates each of Plaintiff's claims.

A. Race and Sex Discrimination under Title VII (Counts I, II)

Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on Counts I and II of Plaintiff's complaint because Plaintiff voluntarily resigned her position at JCDHR, she was not treated differently than similarly-situated employees, and she cannot establish that Defendants' articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination was a pretext for discrimination. (Doc. #50 at 18-24). The court agrees that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims for race and sex discrimination, but not for all of the reasons they have asserted.

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer "to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the prima facie case of race and sex discrimination. Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1561 (11th Cir. 1997).

To establish the prima facie case of disparate treatment discrimination using the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework,10 Plaintiff must present evidence that (1) she belongs to a protected class of individuals; (2) she was qualified for her position; (3) she was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (4) her employer treated similarly-situated, non-African American women employees more favorably.11 Burke-Fowler v. Orange Cty., 447 F.3d 1319, 1323 (11th Cir. 2006); see also McCann v. Tillman, 526 F.3d 1370, 1373 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating that a plaintiff must produce evidence of similarly-situated comparators when he alleges that other employees engaged in similar conduct but were not similarly disciplined). That is, Plaintiff must set forth "facts adequate to permit an inference of discrimination." Holifield, 115 F.3d at 1562.

Once a plaintiff has established the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate "legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged employment action." Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519, 1528 (11th Cir. 1997). Producing evidence (whether ultimately persuasive or not) of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions is enough for the employer to satisfy its burden." Id.

If a defendant carries its burden of production, the initial presumption of discrimination established by the plaintiff's prima facie case evaporates. Wilson, 376 F.3d at 1087. "[A]nd the burden of production shifts to the plaintiff to offer evidence that the alleged reason of the employer is a pretext for illegal discrimination." Id. "If the proffered reason is one that might motivate a reasonable employer, a plaintiff cannot recast the reason but must meet it head on and rebut it." Id. at 1088.

1. The Adverse Employment Action

Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of either race or gender discrimination for a simple reason — she was not subjected to an adverse employment action. (Doc. #50 at 18-21). An adverse employment action is a necessary element of a discrimination claim. But "[a]n employment action is considered `adverse' only if it results in some tangible, negative effect on the plaintiff's employment." Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1261 (11th Cir. 2001). The question of whether an employment action is adverse is objective: the plaintiff "must demonstrate that a reasonable person in [her] position would view the employment action in question as adverse." Doe v. Dekalb Cty. Sch. Dist., 145 F.3d 1441, 1445 (11th Cir. 1998).

Here, Plaintiff resigned her employment. (Doc. #51-1, Bell Personnel File at 1026; Doc. #51-2, Bell Dep. at 148-52). Based on this fact, Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot establish the prima facie case because there was no adverse employment action. (Doc. #50 at 18-21). While it is true that, based on the facts presented here, the court would likely find that Plaintiff's resignation of employment was voluntary,12 that is not the relevant inquiry here. In actuality, the purported adverse employment action occurred prior to the resignation when, on September 30, 2015, Plaintiff was issued a charge letter and suspended from employment without pay. (Doc. #51-12, Mandatory Leave Letter at 1093). Although the charge letter itself did not constitute an "ultimate employment decision," it did, in a "substantial way, alter [Plaintiff's] compensation, terms, conditions, [and] privileges of employment." Phillips v. Gestamp Al., Inc., 2018 WL 3475432 at *7 (N.D. Ala. July 19, 2018) (Ott, J.) (quoting Doe, 145 F.3d at 1452). Because Plaintiff was suspended without pay and required to surrender her employee badge and key (Doc. #51-2, Bell Dep. at 141-42), she has established an adverse employment action for purposes of the prima facie case.

2. Similarly Situated Employees

Although Plaintiff has established an adverse employment action, she must also establish, for purposes of establishing a prima facie case, that Defendants intentionally treated her less favorably than those outside of her protected class. Burke-Fowler, 447 F.3d at 1323. Plaintiff contends that "white employees in that same office . . . routinely disrespected black clients at the service window for child support" yet were not subjected to suspension without pay as a result. (Doc. #56 at 9, 22-23).

To be an adequate comparator, the preferentially treated individual from outside Plaintiff's protected class must be similarly situated to her in all relevant respects. Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321, 1326 n. 17 (11th Cir. 2011); Holifield, 115 F.3d at 1562. The Eleventh Circuit has recognized the "apparent tension in our precedent regarding the standard for evaluating a valid comparator. In some cases, we have said that the plaintiff's misconduct and the comparator's conduct must be `nearly identical.' In other cases, we have said that a comparator is similarly situated to the plaintiff if she and the comparator were accused of `the same or similar conduct.'" Smelter v. S. Home Care Servs., Inc., ___ F.3d ____, 2018 WL 4560684 at *11 (11th Cir. Sept. 24, 2018) (quoting Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rahall Commc'ns, 738 F.2d 1181, 1185 (11th Cir. 1984) and Holifield, 115 F.3d at 1562). However here, as in Smelter, to the extent those standards conflict, Plaintiff's comparator evidence fails regardless of whether the standard applied is the lesser "same or similar" or the more exacting "nearly identical." Smelter, 2018 WL 4560684 at *11.

Plaintiff has identified five Caucasian individuals as potential comparators: Bonnie O'Dell Campos, Meghan Wheed, Dorothy Stancil, Janie Akins, and John Latham. (Doc. #56 at 9, 13, 22-23). Because there are significant differences in each of those employees' circumstances, however, none are similarly situated to Plaintiff and the prima facie case fails.13

With regard to Campos, Wheed, Stancil, and Latham, Plaintiff testified that she complained to Boleware "because they treated African American clients differently than whites by being rude and obnoxious to them."14 (Doc. #56 at 13-14, ¶ 23; Doc. #51-2, Bell Dep. at 167-68, 170-71, 175-76, 185, 218). This cursory mention of the behavior of her co-workers is completely devoid of any meaningful context. (Doc. #51-2, Bell Dep. at 164-75) (e.g., "[e]very time he would come, she would be rude to him;" "being rude and obnoxious at the front desk, not wanting to come to see — come down to see them;" "the language that she was using towards him . . . the way she was talking to him;" "talking rudely to a black male customer"). There is nothing in the Rule 56 record to explain in what way these individuals may have been "rude and obnoxious" to clients. There are no counseling records or personnel files of the purported comparators.15 In other words, there is not even a cursory amount of evidence. In fact, there is only Plaintiff's own subjective belief that Caucasian co-workers were "rude and obnoxious" to African American clients. The problem with that, of course, is that Plaintiff's subjective belief that co-workers treated clients with disrespect cannot bear the burden of establishing this prong of the prima facie case. See Arafat v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cty., 549 Fed. Appx. 872, 874 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that complaint that "generically referenced younger males" as receiving more favorable treatment did "not plausibly suggest intentional discrimination"); Curtis v. Broward Cnty., 292 Fed. Appx. 882, 884 (11th Cir. 2008) (finding that Plaintiff "failed to adduce any specific evidence to back up her allegations that [the purported comparators] had also hung up on customers"); Cooper v. Southern Co., 390 F.3d 695, 745 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that summary judgment was appropriate when the plaintiff relied on conclusory allegations based on her subjective belief).

As to Akins, Plaintiff argues that she is a proper comparator because she "had a lengthy record of egregious behavior including but not limited to insubordination, failing to do her job, absenteeism, tardiness, and disruptive conduct." (Doc. #56 at 23). At least in this instance, Plaintiff has advanced some evidence of Akins's misconduct. (Doc. #56, Exhs. 2, 3). But that evidence fails to establish that the two were "the same or similar" or "nearly identical."

Akins's charge letter notes violations of certain work rules — absenteeism, tardiness, failure to perform job properly, disruptive conduct, violation of specific department rules, and insubordination. (Doc. #56, Exh. 3 at 1342). Specifically, the charge letter accuses Akins of "inappropriately questioning the actions" of a supervisor, "violat[ing] the directive to follow the chain of command," sending "inappropriate [emails] in . . . tone, demeanor, and words," demonstrating "a complete lack of respect and professionalism," "blatant[ly] disregard[ing] directives and sen[ding] numerous emails to the state office help desk," sending a "stream of emails" to the State Office which were "disruptive and confusing," and showing no improvement of behavior. (Id. at 1342-46). Akins was not suspended without pay when she was issued the charge letter bur rather was given progressive discipline including suspensions and warnings before her charge letter was issued. (Doc. #56 at 23). Unlike Plaintiff, Akins appeared for her Administrative Hearing to be heard on the charges brought against her. (Doc. #56, Exh. 3 at 1341). At that hearing, Akins admitted that she had scanned confidential food stamp records to herself. (Id.). As a result, Akins's access to DHR records was revoked and she was suspended without pay pending a second Administrative Hearing. (Id.; Doc. #56, Exh. 2).

Whether operating under a "same or similar" or "nearly identical" analysis, Akins is not a proper comparator for Plaintiff. Plaintiff was charged with violation of specific department rules and disruptive conduct, both of which Akins was also charged with. (Doc. #56-1 at 1027; Doc. #56, Exh. 3). But Akins was not charged with (or ever accused of) unprofessional treatment of clientele, violence in the workplace, violation of safety rules, and conduct unbecoming a state employee. (Doc. #51-1 at 1027; Doc. #56, Exh. 3). Comparators must be similarly situated "in all relevant respects." Holifield, 115 F.3d at 1562. Violence in the workplace and violation of safety rules are not comparable infractions to absenteeism, tardiness, failure to perform job properly, or even insubordination. Smelter, 2018 WL 4560684 at *11 (finding that "even if [Plaintiff's] performance problems were similar to [her comparators], the fact that [Plaintiff] engaged in additional misconduct — her altercation with [a co-worker] — means that she was not similarly situated to those employees and cannot rely on them as comparators").

Because Plaintiff does not advance a proper comparator for her claims of race and gender discrimination,16 the prima facie case fails.

3. Pretext

Even assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiff had advanced the prima facie case of race and gender discrimination under Title VII (and, to be clear, she has not), her discrimination claims would nevertheless fail.17 Defendants have articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for acting adversely against Plaintiff — namely, "Plaintiff's repeatedly attempted attack in the elevator lobby of the Jefferson County Department of Human Resources on August 21, 2015 as recorded on the Exhibit 4 video." (Doc. #50 at 24). Because the articulated reason is "one that might motivate a reasonable employer," Plaintiff cannot merely "quarrel with the wisdom of that reason," but must "meet the reason head on and rebut it" to establish pretext. Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1030 (11th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff argues that she can show pretext and presents a virtual shotgun blast of reasons for her assertion. She contends that: (1) only "conclusory allegations" support the contention that she violated any work rules because DHR managers have not described "the exact definition of violence in the workplace and what act by Plaintiff was violence in the workplace" and have not addressed Plaintiff's "attempt to protect her children after being assaulted and threatened as workplace violence" (Doc. #56 at 7-8, ¶ 11); (2) she was "not the aggressor on the day in question and had every right under the law to defend herself from the attack" (Doc. #56 at 23); (3) she "cannot be guilty" of workplace violence because "she was off duty and in a common area of the building not the leased premises of DHR or the state of Alabama" (Doc. #56 at 7, ¶ 10); (4) employees outside of her protected class were not similarly disciplined for "far more egregious" actions (Doc. #56 at 24); (5) "historically" when black females are charged with workplace violations, they are discharged after the Administrative Hearing (Doc. #56 at 5, ¶ 6); (6) there are corroborating statements that verify Plaintiff's version of the elevator incident (Doc. #56 at 5-6, ¶ 7); (7) Defendants are relying on their "own biased interpretation or perspective of the silent video in spite of the testimony of [Plaintiff] herself" (Doc. #56 at 6-7, ¶ 7); (8) Plaintiff's personnel file was not reviewed prior to issuing the charge letter (Doc. #56 at 8-9, ¶ 13); and (9) a "secret" investigation was conducted into the August 21, 2015 incident and Defendants "skipped over" their own progressive discipline policies (Doc. #56 at 4, ¶ 5).

The central problem with Plaintiff's scatter shot pretext arguments is that she quarrels with how Defendants interpreted the video of the elevator lobby incident. In Plaintiff's mind, she felt threatened by DS, was worried for the safety of her children downstairs, and felt justified to act the way she did to protect herself. But this is not the way Defendants interpreted the events of August 21, 2015. Defendants believed that the video evidenced Plaintiff's propensity towards violence, showed deficiencies in her judgment, and demonstrated conduct unbecoming a state employee. Unfortunately for Plaintiff, the pretext inquiry "centers on the employer's beliefs, not the employee's beliefs . . . and not on reality as is exists outside of the decision maker's head." Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Devs., Inc., 610 F.3d 1253, 1266 (11th Cir. 2010). There is nothing in the Rule 56 record to call into question Defendants' honest belief — right or wrong — that the incident occurred as they interpreted it after their review of the video and witness statements. See Montoya v. Morgan, 2018 WL 4701795 at *11 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2018) (Casey, J.). Perhaps Defendants would have come to a different interpretation had Plaintiff presented her side of the story at the Administrative Hearing. But Plaintiff resigned her employment before allowing that process to play out. See also Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354, 1363 n. 3 (11th Cir. 1999) (noting that an employer acting "under the mistaken but honest impression that the employee violated a work rule is not liable for discriminatory conduct").

Nor is there any evidence or inconsistency demonstrating that Defendants did not actually base their decision to issue the charge letter on the documented incident. Montoya, 2018 WL 4701795 at *11. As analyzed above, Plaintiff can point to no valid comparators. There is no one in the department who was treated more favorably than her in a comparable circumstance. Nor has Plaintiff cited to anything which shows that "historically" African American females were disciplined more harshly than those not in the protected category.

Importantly, whether as a technical matter it was wise to issue Plaintiff a charge letter and suspend her without pay before the Administrative Hearing is not for this court to decide. This court does not sit as a super-personnel board, see Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1030, and declines the invitation to become a Human Resources Director. See Williams v. CSX Transp., Inc., 2015 WL 1395922 at *17 (N.D. Ala. March 25, 2015). Plaintiff's claims are for race and gender discrimination. There is no Rule 56 evidence to support those claims.

B. Retaliation under Title VII (Count III)

Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot establish the prima facie case of retaliation. (Doc. #50 at 24-27). After careful review of the Rule 56 record, the court agrees.18

Title VII's anti-retaliation provision provides that:

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). To establish the prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that (1) she engaged in a statutorily protected expression; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there is some causal relationship between the two events. Holifield, 115 F.3d at 1566.

Here, Plaintiff claims that she engaged in protected conduct "on a regular basis by making her supervisors aware of the discriminatory acts of her white counterparts when it came to providing the respect and courtesy to black clients of the Agency." (Doc. #56 at 25-26). See Rollins v. Fla. Dep't of Law Enforcement, 868 F.2d 397, 400 (11th Cir. 1989) ("[W]e recognize that the protection afforded by the statute is not limited to individuals who have filed formal complaints, but extends as well to those, like [the plaintiff], who informally voice complaints to their superiors or who use their employers' internal grievance procedures."). More specifically Plaintiff has alleged the following:19

To establish that she engaged in opposition protected under Title VII, Plaintiff must show that she had "a good faith, reasonable belief that the employer was engaged in unlawful employment practices." Weeks v. Harden Mfg. Corp., 291 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Little v. United Techs., Carrier Transicold Div., 103 F.3d 956, 960 (11th Cir. 1997)). "A plaintiff must not only show that he subjectively (that is, in good faith) believed that his employer was engaged in unlawful employment practices, but also that his belief was objectively reasonable in light of the facts and record presented." Little, 103 F.3d at 960 (italics in original).

Based on Plaintiff's testimony, no reasonable jury could conclude that Plaintiff had a good faith, reasonable belief that she engaged in statutorily protected activity. To qualify as protected activity, a plaintiff's opposition must be directed to a practice made unlawful by Title VII. Bush v. Sears Holding Corp., 466 Fed. Appx. 781, 786 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); Clover v. Total Sys. Servs., Inc., 176 F.3d 1346, 1353 (11th Cir. 1999). While Plaintiff may have believed that certain individual co-workers were treating clients differently on the basis of race, she never complained that JCDHR and/or ALDHR as a whole treated clients differently based upon race, nor that she personally was being treated differently on the basis of her gender or race. (Doc. #51-2, Bell Dep. at 170). And other than noting the different races of those involved, Plaintiff provides "nothing beyond conclusory speculation" that African American clients were treated worse than Caucasian clients. Mahone v. BBG Specialty Foods, Inc., 2018 WL 1526336 at *12 (M.D. Ala. March 28, 2018). Plaintiff's speculation is not evidence that can overcome a properly supported motion for summary judgment. See Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1318 (11th Cir. 2011) (stating that "`evidence' consisting of one speculative inference heaped upon another" was "entirely insufficient to overcome summary judgment."). Moreover, subjective complaints of "rudeness" qualify as "those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience" and for which Title VII provides no protection. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006). Generalized complaints are not protected by Title VII. Tlemcani v. Ga. Dep't of Comm. Health, 2018 WL 3581133 at *18 (N.D. Ga. June 15, 2018). For these reasons, Plaintiff has failed to establish the first prong of her prima facie case of retaliation.

Even assuming Plaintiff's complaints could qualify as statutorily protected activity, she cannot establish a causal connection between lodging those complaints and the issuance of the charge letter. It is undisputed that Plaintiff does not specifically know when her complaints were made, only that they were made between 2009 and 2015. (Doc. #51-2, Bell Dep. at 168, 187) ("I don't remember the dates;" "I didn't put it in writing"). Plaintiff does not know the month(s) that complaints were made, nor does she know how many complaints she made during the course of her employment. (Id. at 165-79). Moreover, these complaints were made only to Boleware. (Id. at 167; Doc. #51-3, Heath Dep. at 167-70). Boleware was not involved in the decision to issue Plaintiff a charge letter, and there is no evidence to support a conclusion that those involved with the charge letter were even aware of the complaints. (Doc. #51-18, Boleware Dep. at 33, 44-48; Doc. #51-2, Bell Dep. at 167-76, 185). Because a plaintiff establishes a causal connection by showing that the relevant decisionmaker was "aware of the protected conduct, and that the protected activity and the adverse actions were not wholly unrelated," Shannon v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., 292 F.3d 712, 716 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Gupta v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 212 F.3d 571, 590 (11th Cir. 2000)), her claim for retaliation necessarily fails on the causal connection prong. See also Bass v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 256 F.3d 1095, 1119 (11th Cir. 2001), overruled in part on other grounds by Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961 (11th Cir. 2008) ("Close temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse action may be sufficient to show that the two were not wholly unrelated.").

Plaintiff's claim for retaliation under Title VII is due to be dismissed.

C. Equal Protection in Violation of Fourteenth Amendment (Count IV)

Plaintiff argues that Defendants have denied her Equal Protection of the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution "by refusing to grant her equal employment opportunity and discriminating against her based on her race (black), and sex (female), age (over 40), color (dark skin), retaliation (prior complaints of discriminatory conduct), and national origin (Black American)." (Doc. #33, Compl., ¶¶ 48-49; Doc. #56 at 26-27). Specifically, Plaintiff argues that she was constructively discharged from her position at JCDHR and because other "white and or male counterparts were not subjected to suspension without pay and refused progressive discipline based on false and unproven allegations of misconduct as [Plaintiff]was so she has proven a prima facie case of violation of her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution making summary judgment on this issue improper as a matter of law." (Doc. #56 at 27).

Discrimination claims brought under the Equal Protection Clause are subject to the same standards of proof and employ the same analytical framework as Title VII claims. Bryant v. Jones, 575 F.3d 1281, 1296 n. 20 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Vessels v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., Inc., 408 F.3d 763, 767 (11th Cir. 2005) (observing that disparate treatment claims based upon a plaintiff's race and "brought under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983, all require discriminatory intent"); Kidd v. City of Jasper, 2018 WL 2766058 at *3-4 (N.D. Ala. June 8, 2018) (Putnam, J.) ("[t]he analysis of race discrimination claims in public employment under § 1983 and the Equal Protection clause utilize the same framework as race discrimination claims under Title VII and § 1981."). Therefore, the court's analysis of the Title VII claims set forth above apply here. For those reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment, as it relates to Plaintiff's Equal Protection Claim, is due to be granted.20

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth herein, the court finds that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #49) is due to be granted in its entirety. A separate order will be entered.

DONE and ORDERED.