Rosalind Brown v. EOA—Economic Opportunity for Savannah-Chatham County Area Inc., et al.

S.D. Georgia

Rosalind Brown v. EOA—Economic Opportunity for Savannah-Chatham County Area Inc., et al.

DecidedNovember 4, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-00194

StatusUnknown

This text of Rosalind Brown v. EOA—Economic Opportunity for Savannah-Chatham County Area Inc., et al. (Rosalind Brown v. EOA—Economic Opportunity for Savannah-Chatham County Area Inc., et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rosalind Brown v. EOA—Economic Opportunity for Savannah-Chatham County Area Inc., et al., (S.D. Ga. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

ROSALIND BROWN,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:25-cv-194

v.

EOA—ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR SAVANNAH-CHATHAM COUNTY AREA INC., et al..,

Defendants.

O RDER After a careful de novo review of the entire record, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s September 15, 2025, Report and Recommendation, (doc. 8), to which plaintiff filed an objection, (doc. 9). Brown’s Objection addresses, albeit obliquely, the Magistrate Judge’s determination that she failed to state any retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because her report of another employee’s sexual harassment of a non-employee third party was not “protected activity.” (See doc. 8, pp. 7—9.) Charitably construed, she asserts her employer’s internal anti-harassment policy precludes retaliation for any report of harassment. (Doc. 9, pp. 2, 5.) That argument does not even challenge, much less rebut, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that reports of harassment such as those alleged in Brown’s Amended Complaint cannot support a Title VII retaliation claim. Whether or not Brown’s reports of alleged sexual harassment were protected by her employer’s policies or not, such conduct “(while reprehensible) is not an ‘employment practice made unlawful’ by Title VII.” Edwards v. Ambient Healthcare of Ga., Inc., 674 F. App’x 926, 930 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As in Edwards, Brown has not pointed to any authority “that an employee’s discrimination against a third party is an unlawful employment practice under Title VII or that opposition to such conduct constitutes protected activity under Title VII.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, her objection to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that she has failed to state any Title VII retaliation claim upon which relief can be granted fails. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Objection is OVERRULED, (doc. 9), and the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as its opinion, (doc. 8.) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED. (Doc. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. SO ORDERED, this 4th day of November, 2025.

R.STANBAKER,CHIEFJUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

ROSALIND BROWN,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:25-cv-194

v.

EOA—ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR SAVANNAH-CHATHAM COUNTY AREA INC., et al..,

Defendants.

O RDER After a careful de novo review of the entire record, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s September 15, 2025, Report and Recommendation, (doc. 8), to which plaintiff filed an objection, (doc. 9). Brown’s Objection addresses, albeit obliquely, the Magistrate Judge’s determination that she failed to state any retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because her report of another employee’s sexual harassment of a non-employee third party was not “protected activity.” (See doc. 8, pp. 7—9.) Charitably construed, she asserts her employer’s internal anti-harassment policy precludes retaliation for any report of harassment. (Doc. 9, pp. 2, 5.) That argument does not even challenge, much less rebut, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that reports of harassment such as those alleged in Brown’s Amended Complaint cannot support a Title VII retaliation claim. Whether or not Brown’s reports of alleged sexual harassment were protected by her employer’s policies or not, such conduct “(while reprehensible) is not an ‘employment practice made unlawful’ by Title VII.” Edwards v. Ambient Healthcare of Ga., Inc., 674 F. App’x 926, 930 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As in Edwards, Brown has not pointed to any authority “that an employee’s discrimination against a third party is an unlawful employment practice under Title VII or that opposition to such conduct constitutes protected activity under Title VII.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, her objection to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that she has failed to state any Title VII retaliation claim upon which relief can be granted fails. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Objection is OVERRULED, (doc. 9), and the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as its opinion, (doc. 8.) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED. (Doc. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. SO ORDERED, this 4th day of November, 2025.

R.STANBAKER,CHIEFJUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rosalind Brown v. EOA—Economic Opportunity for Savannah-Chatham County Area Inc., et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosalind-brown-v-eoaeconomic-opportunity-for-savannah-chatham-county-area-gasd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack