United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
A. TRAUGER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the court is an unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment
(Docket No. 15) filed by the Defendant, the Metropolitan
Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tennessee
(“Metro”). For the reasons discussed herein,
Metro's motion will be granted.
& PROCEDURAL HISTORY
plaintiff, Anthony Reyes, is an African American man and a
former police officer with Metro Police Department. He filed
this employment discrimination action on November 3, 2015
based on disciplinary action that was taken against him by
Metro, including restrictions on his secondary employment
privileges and termination from his position as a police
officer. (Docket No. 1.) The Complaint brings claims for
racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000
et seq. (“Title VII”).
October 12, 2016, the court issued an Order temporarily
holding this action in abeyance due to the Tennessee Supreme
Court's suspension of Mr. Reyes's former counsel,
Andy Allman. (Docket No. 14.) The Order provided that the
case would remain in abeyance until Mr. Reyes entered the
appearance of substitute counsel or until December 9, 2016
(at which point, absent the appearance of substitute counsel,
Mr. Reyes would be presumed to be proceeding pro
se), whichever came first. No appearance of substitute
counsel was ever entered.
February 10, 2017, Metro filed a Motion for Summary
Judgement. (Docket No. 15.) Metro attached to its Motion the
full transcript of proceedings before the Metro Civil Service
Commission Administrative Law Judge Anthony Adgent, in which
Mr. Reyes, with representation of counsel, challenged his
termination from Metro Police Department. (Docket No. 15-3.)
Metro also attached Judge Adgent's Initial Order in those
proceedings, as well as the Final Order issued by Bill
Farmer, Chairman for Metro's Civil Service Commission.
(Docket No. 15-1.) Finally, Metro attached two EEOC charges
filed by Mr. Reyes in connection with this matter. (Docket
No. 15-2.) The first EEOC charge is dated September 5, 2014
(after disciplinary charges by Metro had been filed against
Mr. Reyes) and alleges racial discrimination. This EEOC
charge makes the vague allegation that white police officers
working for Metro have received less discipline than Mr.
Reyes for similar offenses, though the charge does not name
any other officer in particular or provide any details about
the infractions of other officers or the discipline received.
The second EEOC charge is dated October 1, 2014 (after Mr.
Reyes was terminated from his position) and alleges
retaliation. Metro simultaneously filed a Memorandum in
support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 16)
and a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Docket No. 17).
facts contained in Metro's Statement of Undisputed
Material Facts and in its Memorandum echo (and cite to) the
facts contained in Judge Adgent's Initial Order, which
were adopted by Mr. Farmer's Final Order. These facts are
• Mr. Reyes was a police officer with the North Precinct
of Metro Police Department in December of 2013, when he was
involved in an accident while driving a Metro patrol car.
Upon investigation, Metro made the following findings: that
Mr. Reyes was at fault for the accident; that he was not
authorized to have been using the patrol vehicle at the time
of the accident, while he was performing a secondary
employment position; that he was not logged into the patrol
vehicle's laptop, which is required whenever the vehicle
is in use; and that Mr. Reyes had a prior history of
disciplinary infractions and complaints against him,
including a history of accidents while using a Metro patrol
• As a result, Metro placed restrictions on Mr.
Reyes's secondary employment privileges, such that Mr.
Reyes would thereafter only be permitted to take secondary
employment positions through Metro's own Secondary
Employment Unit, through crime reduction initiatives
implemented by the North Precinct, or for special events. Mr.
Reyes was given a memorandum explaining these restrictions,
which were also verbally explained to him by a supervisor,
and he signed an acknowledgement of receipt.
• Despite the restrictions, Mr. Reyes continued to work
as a courtesy officer for the Grove Apartments, where he was
a resident, in exchange for compensation in the form of an
$800 per month reduction in his rent. This position did not
fall under one of the enumerated exceptions to Mr.
Reyes's secondary employment restrictions, and it was a
violation of Metro policies for him to continue this
• In January of 2014, Mr. Reyes was transferred from the
North Precinct to Metro's West Precinct. Around the same
time, Mr. Reyes's term as a courtesy officer with Grove
Apartments was scheduled to end, and Mr. Reyes asked his new
supervisors for permission to apply for a renewed term as a
courtesy officer at Grove Apartments, without informing his
new supervisors of his secondary employment restrictions.
• On February 16, 2014, Mr. Reyes's request for
renewed secondary employment at Grove Apartments was denied
by Metro due to the restrictions on Mr. Reyes's secondary
employment privileges. When asked by a supervisor if he had
been working at Grove Apartments, Mr. Reyes told the
supervisor that he had not. In fact, Mr. Reyes continued to
perform the functions of a courtesy officer for Grove
Apartments, and receive the rental reduction compensation,
through March 18, 2014. Dishonesty in communications with a
Metro supervisor is a violation of Metro policy.
• During this time, Mr. Reyes also looked up information
about license plates of vehicles parked at Grove Apartments
and shared that information with Grove Apartments staff
members who were not Metro law enforcement personnel, in
violation of Metro policies.
• On August 28, 2014, Metro filed disciplinary charges
against Mr. Reyes on the basis of ...