Allen v. S. Commc'ns Servs., Inc.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
• Writing for the Court: L. SCOTT COOGLER
• Citation: Allen v. S. Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 963 F.Supp.2d 1242 (N.D. Ala. 2013)
• Decision Date: 05 August 2013
• Docket Number: No. 2:11–cv–4097–LSC.,2:11–cv–4097–LSC.
• Parties: Horace Jeffrey ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., Defendant.

963 F.Supp.2d 1242

Horace Jeffrey ALLEN, Plaintiff,

v.SOUTHERN COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., Defendant.

No. 2:11–cv–4097–LSC.

United States District Court,

N.D. Alabama,

Southern Division.

Aug. 5, 2013.

Kenneth D. Haynes, Haynes & Haynes PC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.

M. Jefferson Starling, III, Ginny B. Willcox, Balch & Bingham LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

L. SCOTT COOGLER, District Judge.

I. Introduction

In the above-entitled action, Horace Jeffrey Allen (“Plaintiff”) claims his former employer, Southern Communications Services, Inc., doing business as SouthernLINC Wireless (“SouthernLINC”), retaliated against him for filing complaints in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) when it terminated his employment. Following discovery, SouthernLINC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment that brought about the filing of Motions to Strike by both parties, all of which are fully briefed and ripe for decision.

II. Facts ¹

SouthernLINC is a company that provides a cellular communications network for use within the United States by its customers, and purchases and resells mobile cellular handsets manufactured by other companies for use over its cellular network. Plaintiff began working for SouthernLINC in 2002 as a Customer Support Representative (“CSR”) in the Customer Service Department, and was promoted in 2005 to Customer Support Team Lead (“Team Lead”) in the Call Center division. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, there were a total of five Team Leads in the Customer Service Department. Plaintiff reported directly to Technical Customer Support Supervisor Blake Thompson (“Thompson”), and Thompson reported to Customer Support Manager Rance Hardy (“Hardy”).

SouthernLINC's employees were afforded several ways to raise complaints about work-related issues. First, an employee could contact management or Human Resources directly. Second, SouthernLINC's employees were required to complete annual Compliance Surveys at the beginning of each year in which they were asked to disclose, among other things, any discrimination they believed they suffered in the previous year. Third, SouthernLINC employees could file “Concerns” with the Concerns Department if they had issues with discrimination, retaliation, or other unlawful treatment.

In 2006, Plaintiff's wife, who worked at SouthernLINC as an Account Specialist in the company's Customer Accounting Department, was selected for discharge as part of a reduction in force (“RIF”). She was pregnant at the time she was selected, and filed a Concern complaining about discrimination based on her discharge. In Plaintiff's 2006, 2007, and 2008 Compliance Survey responses, he alleged that his wife was terminated based on her pregnancy. Additionally, Plaintiff alleged that he was being retaliated against for his earlier complaints about his wife's termination in his 2007 and 2008 Compliance Survey responses.

Between 2006 and 2009, Plaintiff filed at least six Concerns—all of which were found to be without merit by SouthernLINC. In one Concern, filed on June 24, 2008, he complained that his wife's Concern regarding her termination had been found unsubstantiated. Additionally, he alleged unfair treatment in regards to his time off requests, awards recognition, and performance reviews because of his complaints about his wife's termination.

In the fourth quarter of 2008, Hardy and Human Resources Business Consultant Tiffany Wilder Davis (“Wilder”) began looking into a reorganization of the Customer Service Department based on a downturn in its market and a new system called OrderLINC that automated one of the job responsibilities of the CSRs. Around the same time, Plaintiff received a Team Leader of the Quarter Award.

Employees at SouthernLINC receive mid-year performance evaluations and year-end performance evaluations prepared by their direct supervisor. These evaluations rank the employees in four categories: Individual Goals, Individual Business Results, Company Initiatives, and Behaviors. In his 2008 year-end performance evaluation prepared by Thompson, Plaintiff received a rating of “Fully Met” in all four categories; however, Thompson did note that Plaintiff received “constructive feedback to maintain a positive and open to feedback attitude when interacting with supervisors and team leaders.” (Doc. 44–5 at 18.)

During a 2008 year-end Group Feedback Session, Customer Support management made the following comments about Plaintiff: “Negative attitude—always on defensive with other [Team Leads]—has impact on CSRs—blows issues out of proportion—had issue with another supervisor in other department.” (Doc. 44–8 at 6.) After a tense meeting in March of 2009 with Hardy and Thompson regarding Plaintiff's attitude, Hardy “indicated [Plaintiff] should not report concerns any longer.” (Doc. 44–9 at 1; Pla. Depo. 365:20–366:10.)

In early to mid 2009, Wilder and Hardy decided to eliminate seven CSR positions. Because of the decrease in the workload and the number of CSRs, they also decided it was necessary to eliminate one team lead position.

In July of 2009, Thompson and Wilder worked together to prepare Plaintiff's mid-year performance evaluation. Although Thompson initially gave Plaintiff a rating of “Fully Met” in all four categories, he changed Plaintiff's rating in the “Behaviors” category to “Not Fully Met.” (Doc. 44–5 at 39, 48.) In the comments section, Thompson originally wrote “I recommend that [Plaintiff] work closely with Team Leaders and Supervisors when confronting teamwork issues. I recommend that [Plaintiff] engage more verbally with Team Leaders and Supervisors, rather than sending emails. I recommend that [Plaintiff], when sending emails, send facts only. Not Fully Met.” (Doc. 44–5 at 39.) However, he later changed his comments to state, “Although [Plaintiff] has a great working relationship with external/internal customers and CSRs, he does not have a strong relationship with peers (Team Leaders) and management. I recommend that he focuses on building stronger and more positive relationships with peers (Team Leaders) and management. [Plaintiff] should make an effort to initiate more face-to-face conversations, with people, as opposed to conversing through email to avoid miscommunication and ensure that his points and the points of others are being received as intended.” ( Id. at 48.)

During a 2009 mid-year Group Feedback Session, Customer Support management made the following comments about Plaintiff: “over steps boundaries of job description—responds inappropriately & overacts to minor incidents—takes things too personally—discussion outside of meeting with supervisor/HR.” (Doc. 44–8 at 18.)

Plaintiff filed another Concern on July 31, 2009, complaining about unfair treatment regarding the coding of time, Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) paperwork, and a credit check and denial of a FamilyLINC account. During an investigation of this Concern, Thompson contended that Plaintiff “has trouble relating and working with managers.” (Doc. 44–2 at 41.) In August of 2009, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC alleging retaliation for reporting discrimination related to his wife's termination.

On September 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Concern alleging that he was retaliated against in the administration of a United Way campaign. Immediately after making a contribution, Plaintiff was called by an employee and asked whether he was going to make a contribution. He was under the impression that his participation was voluntary and confidential. Additionally, his picture was not posted on the United Way bulletin board like other employees.

In late November of 2009, Plaintiff sent emails to Wilder inquiring about payment for “on-call” time worked. (Pla. Depo. 256:9–19.) Team Leads were expected to be “on-call” from time-to-time, and were required to record and report all of the on-call time worked. On November 30, 2009, Wilder requested that Plaintiff submit any on-call time for which he believed he was entitled to pay.

As part of the RIF, Wilder and Hardy met on December 2, 2009, and ranked the Team Leads in three separate categories: “Skills and Abilities,” “Job Responsibilities,” and “Southern Style.” These rankings were on a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 representing Outstanding, 3 representing Acceptable, 2 representing Marginal, and 1 representing Unacceptable. To formulate these rankings, Wilder and Hardy drew upon their knowledge and observation of the Team Leads as well as four documents: the 2008 year-end performance evaluations, the 2009 mid-year performance evaluations, the 2008 year-end Group Feedback spreadsheets, and the 2009 mid-year Group Feedback spreadsheets. Plaintiff received a 4 in “Job Responsibilities,” but a 2 in “Skills and Abilities” and “Southern Style.” He was the only Team Lead to receive a 2 in any category, and had the lowest average score of all the Team Leads. After formulating their rankings, Hardy and Wilder selected Plaintiff for termination. He was informed of their decision on December 4, 2009. On May 26, 2010, Plaintiff amended his original EEOC charge to include retaliation for filing the EEOC charge and reporting on-call concerns.

On December 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed the current action, and on January 31, 2012, he amended his complaint, alleging retaliation under the FLSA, Title VII, and § 1981; race discrimination under § 1981; and sex discrimination under Title VII. (Doc. 4.) On Plaintiff's motion, the Court dismissed his discrimination claims following discovery. (Docs. 31, 32.) Thereafter, SouthernLINC filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 38.) Both parties subsequently filed Motions to Strike the other party's evidence in support of their summary judgment briefs. (Docs. 43, 48.)

III. Motions to Strike

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that “[t]he court may strike from a...