Lightner v. Inlivian, 3:23-cv-00846

Background

Lightner worked for Inlivian (formerly Charlotte Housing Authority) from 2005 until resigning in June 2021; her last role was Homeownership Program Coordinator (Jan 2020–June 2021).
Lightner alleges her supervisor, Monica Nathan (Senior VP at C.O.R.E.), instructed practices violating HUD regulations and the Fair Housing Act (e.g., no central waitlist, improper application handling, discriminatory participant selection), and that Lightner reported these concerns.
After reporting and resisting Nathan’s instructions, Lightner says Nathan retaliated (skipping meetings, refusing assistance, blocking work) and issued an informal warning on May 12, 2021; Lightner applied for FMLA and later resigned effective July 30, 2021.
Lightner sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge against Nathan (individual capacity) and for negligent supervision/retention against Inlivian and C.O.R.E.; several claims and official-capacity/punitive damages were previously dismissed.
The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment; the Court reviewed an HCI investigatory report in camera but deemed it irrelevant/hearsay for the remaining claims.
The Court denied both parties’ summary judgment motions and held the case will proceed to trial on the remaining claims (retaliation, hostile work environment, constructive discharge against Nathan individually; negligent supervision/retention against Inlivian and C.O.R.E.).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment retaliation under § 1983	Lightner engaged in protected speech by reporting Nathan’s allegedly unlawful directives; adverse actions (ostracism, denied assistance, informal warning) were caused by that speech	Defendants say actions were de minimis, administrative, or justified by poor performance (late/incomplete reports); no causal connection	Genuine dispute of material fact exists as to protected activity, adverse action, and causation; summary judgment denied for defendants on retaliation claim
Hostile work environment under § 1983/Fourteenth Amendment	Nathan’s directives to violate HUD/FHA plus ensuing exclusion, humiliation, and discipline created an abusive, intolerable atmosphere	Defendants characterize conduct as nitpicking, personality conflict, or isolated incidents insufficient to meet severity or pervasiveness standard	Court finds factual disputes about severity/pervasiveness and imputability; summary judgment denied for both parties
Constructive discharge	Lightner argues working conditions (illegal directives + retaliation) were so intolerable she was compelled to resign	Defendants point to Lightner’s deposition testimony denying inclination to resign, willingness to accept other positions, and the month-long notice period as undermining constructive discharge	Court finds genuine factual disputes on intolerability and causation; summary judgment denied for both parties
Negligent supervision/retention against Inlivian and C.O.R.E.	Employers failed to supervise/retain properly after notice of Nathan’s misconduct, causing Lightner’s injuries	Defendants contend no underlying tort established and no negligent supervision; HCI report not dispositive	Because underlying claims survive summary judgment and factual disputes remain, negligent supervision/retention claim survives; summary judgment denied

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment—"genuine dispute" standard)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
United States v. Diebold, 369 U.S. 654 (construing inferences against movant at summary judgment)
Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474 (Fourth Circuit—temporal proximity and causation in First Amendment retaliation)
Sharp v. City of Houston, 164 F.3d 923 (adverse-action threshold in public-employee retaliation)
Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376 (substantial or motivating factor causation in retaliation)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (hostile-work-environment objective/subjective standard)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (terms and conditions standard for hostile work environment)
Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (constructive discharge tied to hostile-work-environment claims)
Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547 (constructive-discharge doctrine)
Evans v. Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636 (public-official immunity principles)