United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas
GWENDOLYN L. SHELTON PLAINTIFE
PINE BLUFF/JEFFERSON COUNTY LIBRARY DEFENDANT
Gwendolyn L. Shelton, Pro Se
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Gwendolyn L. Shelton ("Plaintiff Shelton"),
respectfully opposes Defendant Pine Bluff/Jefferson County
Library System's ("System") motion for summary
judgment ("Defendant's Motion") and request
that the Court instead grant the relief Plaintiff seeks in
her objection to motion for summary judgment
("Plaintiffs' Objection"), The arguments set
forth in Defendants' Motion largely are based upon untrue
facts, manipulated statistics, and other illegal actions.
(Shelton Declaration, Exhibits 9-14). That the System's
practice of using certain figures for funding purposes have a
disparate impact on library branches communities with a
majority black population as compared to library branches
with a majority white population. (Griggs v. Duke Power
Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). This practice has and
disparate impact on the employees of these libraries.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424; Willis
v. Watson Chapel School Dist., 703 F.Supp. 1381 (E.D.
are genuine issues of fact that exist in this case, which
with further discovery, Plaintiff Shelton, would be entitled
to judgment as a matter of law under the Civil Rights Act of
1964, § 703(k)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(k)(1) due
to disparate impact. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401
U.S. 424 (1971); Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.,
400 U.S.542 (1971; Willis v. Watson Chapel School
Dist., 703 F.Supp.1381 (E.D. Ark. 1988).
Shelton responds as follows to the Defendant's Motion:
Plaintiff Shelton denies that she was a regular part-time
branch manager. Plaintiff Shelton denies that "she
resigned on her own volition." Plaintiff Shelton
resigned due to a hostile and unsafe work environment and not
of her own volition. (Shelton Declaration). Plaintiff Shelton
denies that full-time branch managers had "significantly
higher circulation volumes" because these statistics due
not accurately reflect library usage for library branches
with majority black populations. (Exhibits 9-14, 23, 43-45).
Willis v. Watson Chapel School Dist., 703 F.Supp.
1381 (E.D. Ark. 1988); Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401
U.S. 424 (1971); Ward s Cove Packing v. Antonio, 490
U.S. 657 (1989); Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power
Laboratory, 128 S.Ct 2395 (2008) Although the population
of Altheimer, Arkansas was the smallest of all the branch
libraries, Altheimer Library had greater usage than Redfield
Library. (Exhibits 9 - 14). Plaintiff Shelton knew that she
would only receive 31 hours per week but she was told during
the interview process that she would receive benefits such as
holiday pay, vacation pay, sick leave, and insurance and
relied upon those promises to her detriment when she accepted
the branch manager's position. RESTATEMENT (SECOND)
§ 90; (Shelton Declaration). Plaintiff Shelton alleges
that she did not receive holiday pay, relief when the
Assistant Branch Manager was absent, and accurate vacation
and sick hours due to violations of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 as amended. Civil Rights Act of
1964, §42, U.S.C § 2000e et seq (1964);
Civil Rights Act of 1991, §42, U.S.C §
2000e et seq (1991); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) § 90.
Shelton also alleges violations of the Equal Pay Act in a
case of first impression that she was discriminated against
due to her status as a black female compared to white females
because black females are disproportionately discriminated
against by the Defendant when compared to white females,
black males, or white males. Dindinger v. Allsteel, Inc.,
No. 16-1305 (8th Cir. Apr. 3, 2017); Broadus v. O.K.
Industries, Inc.. 26 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 2000);
Willis v. Watson Chapel School Dist., 703 F.Supp.
1381 (E.D. Ark. 1988). When Congress enacted the EPA, it
established a new minimum labor standard based on die broad
but straightforward principle that "'equal work will
be rewarded by equal wages'" regardless of a
worker's sex. Corning Glass Works v. Brennan,
Ail U.S. 188, 195 (1974) (quoting S. Rep. No. 176, 88th
Cong., 1st Sess. 1 (1963).
articulated in greater detail in the Plaintiffs supporting
brief in Opposition to the Defendant's Motion, Plaintiff
Shelton will establish that she, other black employees, and
the patrons of majority black libraries were discriminated
against because of race or color. (Shelton Deck; Exhibits
9-15, 51, & 58). Plaintiff Shelton can prove that (1) she
did "perform equal work to other System
employee; (2) the System did not pay
"branch managers differently due to legitimate,
non-discriminatory reasons;" and (3) there are
"valid comparators exist" and there is
"evidence of pretext." Griggs v. Duke Power
Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971); Phillips v. Martin
Marietta Corp., 400 U.S.542 (1971). Plaintiff Shelton
can establish violations of the Equal Pay Act even though
there is no "male" branch manager to compare to
because she alleges as a matter of first impression that she
was paid less because of her sex as a black female as
compared to a white female or black male employed by the
System. Dindinger v. Allsteel, 7wc., No. 16-1305
(8th Cir. Apr. 3, 2017); Corning Glass Works v.
Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 195 (1974) (quoting S. Rep. No.
176, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. 1 (1963);); Broadus v. O.K.
Industries, Inc., 26 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff Shelton supports her Opposition to Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment with her Brief in Objection to
Summary Judgment, Response to Statement of Undisputed
Material Facts, and her Response to Tina Blair's
Declaration, me Declaration of Gwendolyn Shelton, and her
exhibits which are listed in the attached Description of
considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must view
ail facts and inferences in a light most favorable to the
nonmoving party." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Rule 56(f)
allows a party opposing summary judgment to seek a
continuance and postpone a summary judgment decision until
adequate discovery has been completed. In re TMJ Implants
Prod. Liab. Litig., 113 F.3d at 1490. When seeking such
a continuance, the party opposing summary judgment must file
an affidavit with the trial court to show what specific facts
further discovery might unveil. Humphreys v. Roche
Biomed. Lab., Inc., 990 F.2d 1078, 1081 (8th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff Shelton respectfully requests that this Court deny
Defendants' motion for summary judgment and grant
Plaintiffs Rule 56(f) motion to seek a continuance, motion
for leave to amend her Amended Complaint, postpone summary
judgment until adequate discovery has ...