Altaweel v. Longent, LLC

• Decision Date: 09 May 2022
• Docket Number: 5:19-CV-573-FL
• Parties: HUSSEIN ALTAWEEL, Plaintiff, v. LONGENT, LLC and RICKY ANTHONY YOUNGBAR, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina

HUSSEIN ALTAWEEL, Plaintiff, v. LONGENT, LLC and RICKY ANTHONY YOUNGBAR, Defendants.

No. 5:19-CV-573-FL

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Eastern Division

May 9, 2022

ORDER

LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, United States District Judge.

This matter is before the court on defendants' motion for summary judgment (DE 42) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and plaintiff's motion to strike (DE 46) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1). The motions have been briefed fully, and the issues raised are ripe for ruling. For the reasons that follow, defendants' motion is granted and plaintiff's motion is denied.^[1]

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant Longent, LLC (“Longent”), plaintiff's former employer December 19, 2019, asserting claims of discrimination retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”). On March 6, 2020, plaintiff amended his complaint as a matter of course to add his former supervisor, Ricky Anthony Youngbar (“Youngbar”) as defendant and certain state law claims. Plaintiff dismissed by stipulation entered July 1, 2021, his state law claims for emotional distress, and the court, in order entered August 24, 2021, dismissed plaintiff's Title VII claims against defendant Youngbar, allowing state law claims to proceed.

Following a period of discovery, on June 4, 2021, defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment directed against all of plaintiff's claims with reliance upon: 1) depositions of plaintiff, defendant Youngbar, and defendant Longent's employees, Diane Beekman (“Beekman”) and Travis Craft (“Craft”); 2) affidavit of defendant Youngbar; and 3) written discovery responses.

In his defense of motion, plaintiff relies upon the deposition testimony of record together with the following evidentiary materials: 1) deposition of Adam Wojcik (“Wojcik”), plaintiff's former coworker; 2) Wojcik's 2018 performance evaluation; 3) emails sent by Wojcik regarding work schedules; 4) additional written discovery responses; 5) affidavit of Jason St. Jean (“St. Jean”), plaintiff's former coworker; 6) documentation regarding requests for paid time off; 7) emails between plaintiff and defendant Youngbar; and 8) a spreadsheet listing the salaries of defendant Longent's project managers. Additionally, plaintiff seeks to strike portions of defendant Youngbar's affidavit and an exhibit thereto, with reference to Youngbar's deposition testimony his later affidavit assertedly contradicts, and discovery requests purportedly encompassing the challenged exhibit.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, may be summarized as follows.^[2]Defendant Longent is a company of 40 or fewer employees that “designs installs, commissions, and maintains wireless systems .... provid[ing] coverage and capacity for wireless service providers such as Verizon and AT&T within facilities and across campus environments.” (Def. Stmt. (DE 43) ¶¶ 2, 3).^[3]Defendant Youngbar is owner and chief executive officer of defendant Longent. (Id. ¶ 1).

Plaintiff, a practicing Muslim, is a United States citizen who immigrated from Iraq in 2013. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 29). Defendant Longent hired plaintiff as a project manager on August 17, 2015. (Id. ¶ 8). Plaintiff's starting salary was $80, 000 which, though more than plaintiff was making at his previous position, was less than plaintiff expected to earn. (Altaweel Dep. (DE 44-5) at 10). It was also $10, 000 less than the average project manager's starting salary. (Project Manager Salary Table (DE 49-15)). According to plaintiff, defendant Youngbar made assurances of the potential for future promotions and advances, indicating that plaintiff would be “area manager for the Carolinas and potentially more.” (Altaweel Dep. (DE 44-5) at 10). Plaintiff alleges these promises were reflective of commentary on the potential for advancement regularly made to defendant Longent employees, particularly foreign nationals. (Craft Dep. (DE 44-6) at 4). According to Craft, plaintiff's first supervisor and chief operating officer:

[E]specially with foreign nationals, they had engineering backgrounds . . . but they were hired in as installation people, and there was a kind of a - there was - I don't know; it's a - I'm thinking of a - you know, like an incentive that, hey, you know, we also have those roles and maybe you can move into one of the engineering roles once you spend your time as a technician .... It's not an assurance or a promise. It's just a statement of fact.

(Id.).

Plaintiff received positive performance reviews over the course of his first 18 months with Longent but did not receive any raises, which according to plaintiff improperly were delayed.

(Def. Stmt. (DE 43) ¶¶ 14, 15; Altaweel Dep. (DE 44-5) at 12). However, following that initial period plaintiff in fact began receiving raises. (Def. Stmt. (DE 43) ¶ 15).

Plaintiff became friends with Craft outside of work, both regularly assisting with home repairs and picking up children from school. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 17). During plaintiff's time reporting to him, Craft consistently rated plaintiff highly on his performance reviews. (Id. ¶ 20).

All employees at defendant Longent are eligible for paid time off. (Id. ¶ 5). However, defendant Longent has a policy of requiring preapproval for requests for planned vacation and time off from work so that it may prepare for and backfill positions while the employee is off duty. (Id.). “Craft did not comply with [d]efendant Longent's policies regarding the timing of his [paid time off] requests.” (Pl. Stmt. (DE 48) ¶ 21). “In July 2018 [defendant] Youngbar discussed these issues with Craft, ” and “[u]ltimately it was decided that Craft would be better off leaving [defendant] Longent and he resigned in July 2018.” (Def. Stmt. (DE 43) ¶ 23). When Craft resigned, plaintiff contacted defendant Youngbar by email, expressing his interest in taking on Craft's role. (Id. ¶ 24). Defendant Longent did not, however, fill the role of chief operating officer and defendant Youngbar became plaintiff's direct supervisor. (Id. ¶ 25).

Sometime in August 2018, plaintiff made verbal request for leave for August 23, 2018, and August 24, 2018, to celebrate Eid al-Adha, a Muslim holiday. (Id. ¶ 29). Plaintiff did not submit a written request for August 23, 2018, but his request for leave August 24, 2018, was reflected in defendant Longent's records as having been made on August 21, 2018. (Id. ¶¶ 32, 33; Pl. Stmt. (DE 48) ¶ 33). According to plaintiff, defendant Youngbar responded to plaintiff's request by mocking the idea of a holiday based on the lunar calendar, asking “what if it's cloudy?” and stating, “we have holidays in this country, and those holidays aren't enough for you?” (Altaweel Dep. (DE 40-6) at 6-7).

Plaintiff's request for leave August 24, 2018, ultimately was approved August 27, 2018. (Def. Stmt. (DE 43) ¶ 31; Pl. Stmt. (DE 48) ¶ 31).

Plaintiff alleges that earlier in August 2018 defendant Youngbar offered to share some of his pork-based lunch with plaintiff, despite being on notice of plaintiff's religiously-based dietary restrictions. (Altaweel Dep. (44-5) at 5). When plaintiff responded, “let me guess . . . it's pork, ” defendant Youngbar confirmed that it was and stressed that it tasted good, and plaintiff should try it. (Id.). Around July of 2018, defendant Youngbar additionally offered plaintiff pizza containing pork. (Id. at 6).

Plaintiff also contends defendant Youngbar, on a date uncertain, commented that the government should not provide food stamps and health benefits to non-Americans. (Altaweel Dep. (DE 49-7) at 5). Further, when candidates with “background[s]” or “profile[s]” similar to plaintiff's were considered for employment, plaintiff alleges defendant Youngbar would “make comments in a sense that such people pretty much are not qualified other than doing, you know, the leg work or field work.” (Id. at 6). Similarly, Craft had a “general sense” that defendant Youngbar had made racist comments, including once in 2004 when Craft and defendant Youngbar drove in a car with an African American employee and defendant Youngbar stated he was embarrassed by the way that employee was behaving. (Craft Dep. (DE 49-2) at 49-50). Additionally, during a lunch with Wojcik, plaintiff's coworker, Wojcik responded he “could see that” when plaintiff stated he believed defendant Youngbar to be racist. (Wojcik Dep. (DE 49-4) at 93).

Defendant Youngbar believed plaintiff “had problems getting to work on time” and “submitting [requests for personal time off] on time.” (Youngbar Dep. (DE 49-3) at 154, 159; Pl. Stmt. (DE 48) ¶ 21).

On November 30, 2018, he placed plaintiff on a performance improvement plan. (Pl. Stmt. (DE 48) ¶ 35). The improvement plan stated that plaintiff:

Does not report to work during the agreed upon work hours. Does not request [paid time off] ahead of time for planned events. Seldom submits [paid time off] requests for last minute time missed. Has not shown commitment to managing projects according to a documented timeline. Does not consistently use project documentation tools such as Insightly, as required.

(Def. Stmt. (DE 43) ¶ 36). According to plaintiff, he complained that the plan was discriminatory on more than one occasion. (Altaweel Dep. (DE 44-5) at 14-15). Pursuant to the plan, plaintiff met with defendant Youngbar on a weekly basis, meetings that plaintiff surreptitiously recorded. (Def. Stmt. (DE 43) ¶ 37). None of those recordings contain discriminatory statements by defendant Youngbar. (Id. ¶ 38; Pl. Stmt. (DE 48) ¶ 38).

On December 21, 2018, defendant Youngbar conducted an annual review of plaintiff. (...