Date: 07-05-2024

Case Style:

John Sheil v. Social Security Administration

Case Number: 20-cv-03057

Judge: Raymond P. Moore

Court: United States District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Denver Social Security Disability Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: United States Attorney's office in Oklahoma City

Description:

Denver, Colorado civil lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a job discrimination theory.

Plaintiff, John Sheil, brought this case pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that his employer, Defendant, the Social Security Administration, engaged in unlawful employment practices against him. (ECF No. 1.) Mr. Sheil alleged that Defendant discriminated against him as to the terms and conditions of his employment on the basis of his gender (male) and race (Black). (Id.) He also asserted that Defendant engaged in retaliation against him due to his protected activity. (Id.) Finally, he asserted a claim of a hostile work environment. (Id.)

Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 42) making several arguments as to why the Court should rule in its favor. Specifically, Defendant asserted that Mr. Sheil did not exhaust his administrative remedies as to several of his allegations, as required under Title VII. (ECF No. 42.) It also argued that Mr. Sheil was not subjected to discrimination on the basis of his race or his sex, nor was he subjected to retaliation or a hostile work environment. (Id.) Mr. Sheil filed a Response, and Defendant filed a Reply.

* * *


According to Mr. Sheil, the disparate treatment and harassment he experienced began in 2017. (Id.) He asserts that he was assigned to close the office more than any of the other supervisors. (Id.) In October of 2017, another employee, a legal assistant, M.L., swore at him while he was supervising her training of another employee. (Id.) Following this incident, Ms. Corder determined that Mr. Sheil would no longer participate in the training of legal assistants. (Id.) Mr. Sheil did continue to provide some training to other employees, although how often he did so is disputed between the parties. (Id.) M.L.'s supervisor spoke with her about the incident. (Id.) In early 2018, Ms. Corder removed the supervision of new legal ssistants from Mr. Sheil's responsibilities.

* * *

Outcome: Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 42) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART:

(1) The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Mr. Sheil's first claim, for discrimination on the basis of gender, and fourth claim, for hostile work environment, which claims are hereby dismissed; and

(2) The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART DENIED IN PART as to Mr. Sheil's second claim, for discrimination on the basis of race, and third claim, for retaliation, as more fully set forth above.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: