United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
E. ROGERS, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
brings this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq.
alleging discrimination based on her race and sex. She also
alleges a state law quantum meruit claim. Presently before
the court is Defendant South Carolina Department of
Corrections' (SCDC) Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
21). All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to
the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g),
DSC. This report and recommendation is entered for review by
the district judge.
an African-American female, began employment with SCDC in
1991. She has been continuously employed at SCDC since that
time. Pl. Dep. 9-12 (Ex. 1 to Pl. Resp.). In 2006, Plaintiff
was promoted to a Program Coordinator II, Band 6 - Level B
with a salary of $37, 905. Pl. Salary History (Ex. 2 to Pl.
Resp.). Plaintiff has received state wide salary increases
since her promotion in 2006 and her salary as of November 17,
2016, was $44, 055 annually. Pl. Salary History. By 2010,
Plaintiff was responsible for coordinating the release
process for youthful offenders in the Division of Young
Offender Parole and Reentry Services (YOPRS). Pl. 2010
Position Description (Ex. B to Def. Motion). On November 2,
2013, SCDC transferred Plaintiff to the Division of
Classification and Women's Facilities in the Inmate
Records Office. Memo. dated Oct. 3, 2013 (Ex. C to Def.
Motion). On January 15, 2016, following the appointment of
David McCall as SCDC's Deputy Director of Operations,
Plaintiff was transferred back to YOPRS. McCall Dep. 19 (Ex.
3 to Pl. Resp.).
Claffy, another SCDC employee, is a white male in the
Division of YOPRS working as a Program Coordinator II.
Beginning in April 2013, Forde Claffy's position included
the duty “Serves as coordinator for the Intensive
Supervision Services (ISS) Referral and Release
Authority” which was allocated to take up 45% of
Claffy's time. Claffy Eval. (Ex. 4 to Pl. Resp.). As of
June 2, 2016, Claffy's pay was $61, 389. Claffy Salary
February 17, 2016, Ginny Barr - Division Director of YOPRS -
requested that SCDC assign technical support duties to Claffy
“to meet the IT demands of the Division.” Memo.
dated Feb. 17, 2016 (Ex. to Pl. Resp.). Claffy is classified
as a Program Coordinator II, Band 6 - Level E, which is
higher than Plaintiff's level. Pl. Dep. 35. In the same
memo, Barr requested that the division assign additional
duties to Plaintiff, stating, “Ms. Watts has the
capacity and skills to expand her duties. It is proposed that
she will add specific release processes for Intensive
Supervision cases currently being managed by Mr. Claffy to
her job duties.” Memo. dated Feb. 17, 2016. These
changes were memorialized in Plaintiff's new Position
Description, which she received on July 26, 2016. Pl.
Position Description (Ex. 7 to Pl. Resp.). These changes to
the job duties of Forde Claffy and Plaintiff were effective
on May 2, 2016. Pl. Dep. 93.
time Claffy was performing these duties, he was compensated
$61, 389 a year. Claffy Salary History. After Claffy's
duties were changed he continued to be paid $61, 389 a year.
Claffy Salary History. Prior to the additional duties being
assigned to Plaintiff, she was making $44, 055 a year. Pl.
Salary History. After the duties were reassigned,
Plaintiff's compensation remained at $44, 055 annually.
Pl. Salary History. Plaintiff has testified that she still
performs all the duties from her previous position, and all
of those duties still appear on Plaintiff's position
description. Pl. Eval. (Ex. 8 to Pl. Resp.). However, Ginny
Barr has testified that Plaintiff's previous job duties
were made obsolete for the most part. Barr Dep. 19-21 (Ex. 9
to Pl. Resp.). In describing the change in Plaintiff's
job duties, Barr testified as follows:
Q. Okay.·Were these the duties that were given to Ms.
Q. Were any of her previous duties taken away when she was
given these duties?
A. Her previous duties became obsolete.
Q. Can you tell me which duties became obsolete?
A. The releasing process the agency had previously used
became obsolete when a new system was put into place.
Q. Just for my clarity, if we look back at Exhibit No. 2,
this is Ms. Watts's EPMS, can you explain to me which of
the duties in here are the duties that you say became
A. At the -- well, the duties that -- it was the duty around
the releasing of youthful offenders from the institution.
Q. Which would be No. four if you turn to the next
page.··It says serves as non-ISS youth/youthful