Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Harrison v. City of Tampa

Harrison v. City of Tampa

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division

June 4, 2019, Decided; June 4, 2019, Filed

Case No. 8:17-cv-01369-T-02CPT

Opinion

ORDER

Plaintiff was employed by a staffing agency and assigned to work for the Water Department at Defendant, the City of Tampa ("City"). In her amended complaint (Dkt. 36), she alleges that she was sexually harassed when she worked at the City and that, when she complained, the City retaliated against her by terminating her work assignment.1 The City moved for summary judgment (Dkts. 70-74), Plaintiff responded in opposition (Dkts. 77-78), and the Court heard oral argument from counsel. Upon consideration, the Court grants the City's motion.

I. BACKGROUND2

A. The Parties

Plaintiff was employed by a staffing company. Dkt. 74 ¶ 6. The staffing company contracted with the City to provide [*2]  staffing supplements. Id. ¶ 7. As part of that arrangement, the staffing company assigned Plaintiff to work with the City starting in April 2016. Id. ¶¶ 7-8. As part of that assignment, Plaintiff worked as a work order technician in the City's Water Department. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8.

Separate and apart from the Water Department is the City's Human Resources ("HR") Department. Dkt. 73 ¶ 3. Kimberly Crum is the director of the City's HR Department. Id. ¶ 4. Crum reviews and approves all formal disciplinary actions and terminations of City employees. Id.

The City has policies that prohibit (among other things) sexual harassment and provide that the HR Department will investigate all complaints that the policies have been violated. See, e.g., Dkt. 73-1 at 4-5; see also Dkt. 72 at 5. The policy is provided to City employees in the union handbook (for bargaining unit employees) and the personnel manual (for non-bargaining unit employees), and City employees sign a receipt acknowledging that they received the handbook or manual. Dkt. 72 at 6-8. Even though Plaintiff was not employed by the City, she could still complain about harassment to the City's HR Department. Id. at 9.

B. Plaintiff's Work Assignment

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93131 *; 130 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P46,320; 2019 WL 2358791

BRANDY HARRISON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF TAMPA, Defendant.

CORE TERMS

harassment, termination, summary judgment, text message, allegations, complaints, messages, sexual harassment, complaining, retaliation, staffing, employees, severe, communications, responded, sexual, deposition, prima facie case, adverse employment action, non-moving, undisputed, contends, hostile, interviewed, investigate, threatening, contacted, genuine, sending, alleged harassment