Andazola v. Logan's Roadhouse, Inc.

Decision Date10 April 2012
Docket NumberCivil Action No. CV–10–S–316–NW.
PartiesBrandy A. ANDAZOLA, Plaintiff v. LOGAN'S ROADHOUSE, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Michael L. Weathers, Florence, AL, for Plaintiff.

Stanley E. Graham, Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis LLP, Nashville, TN, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SMITH, District Judge.

If the regional manager of a national food chain directs the manager of a restaurant under his supervision to hand over her keys to the workplace, 1 and advises her “to quit because [she is] about to be fired,” 2 is that equivalent to actually saying “you are fired”? The plaintiff contends that it is, while defendant construes plaintiff's submission of a letter of resignation the morning after such a conference as a voluntary act that does not give rise to an action under federal employment discrimination statutes seeking damages for “termination” of employment.

The factual scenario sketched in the preceding paragraph presents the most interesting question raised in this case: an action in which plaintiff alleges that her former employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by twice failing to promote her to a General Manager position because of her sex, 3 and by subsequently terminating her employment—either because of plaintiff's gender,4 or in retaliation for her complaints about gender discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace.5 Plaintiff also alleges that defendant violated the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (and, arguably, Title VII) by paying her less than a similarly-situated male employee.6 In addition to those federal claims, plaintiff invokes this court's supplemental jurisdiction,7 and alleges that defendant violated state laws by condoning sexual harassment, failing to properly respond to complaints of sexual harassment, and making false, harmful statements about plaintiff. 8

This opinion addresses defendant's motion for summary judgment; 9 and, upon consideration of that motion, the parties' briefs and evidentiary submissions, and the oral arguments of counsel, this court concludes that defendant's motion is due to be granted on most of plaintiff's claims, but denied as to two.

I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRINCIPLES

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that summary judgment “should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).10 In other words, summary judgment is proper “after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). “A genuine issue of material fact ‘exists only if sufficient evidence is presented favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.’ Farley v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 197 F.3d 1322, 1336 (11th Cir.1999) (quoting Stewart v. Happy Herman's Cheshire Bridge, Inc., 117 F.3d 1278, 1284–85 (11th Cir.1997)).

“In making this determination, the court must review all evidence and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.” Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir.2000) ( en banc ) (quoting Haves v. City of Miami, 52 F.3d 918, 921 (11th Cir.1995)). [A]n inference is not reasonable if it is only a guess or a possibility, for such an inference is not based on the evidence, but is pure conjecture and speculation.” Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home, 692 F.2d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir.1983). Moreover,

[t]he mere existence of some factual dispute will not defeat summary judgment unless that factual dispute is material to an issue affecting the outcome of the case. The relevant rules of substantive law dictate the materiality of a disputed fact. A genuine issue of material fact does not exist unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a reasonable jury to return a verdict in its favor.

Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1023 (quoting Haves, 52 F.3d at 921);see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251–52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (stating that the determinative question is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law”).

II. SUMMARY OF FACTS

The defendant, Logan's Roadhouse, Inc., is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, and the company operates more than 180 company-owned “Logan's Roadhouse”® restaurants in twenty-three states, including Logan's Roadhouse # 312 in Florence, Alabama, as well as supervising the operations of 26 franchisee-owned restaurants serving moderately-priced food under that same tradename.11 Defendant hired plaintiff, Brandy A. Andazola, to be the Bar Manager of the Florence, Alabama restaurant on September 9, 2004. 12 Within the hierarchy of defendant's restaurants, positions such as “Bar Manager,” “Kitchen Manager,” “Dining Room Manager,” and “Front of the House Manager” are classified as “assistant manager” posts, below the level (and supervision) of an “Assistant General Manager” and a “General Manager.” 13 Plaintiff's employment ended on August 26, 2008, just short of the fourth anniversary of her hire date, under circumstances that will be discussed in detail in Part II(E), infra.

A. Plaintiff's Complaints About Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

Plaintiff alleges that she lodged complaints about the conduct of two employees, Peter Austin and Thomas Moody, that she perceived as sexual harassment. Peter Austin was the “Kitchen Manager” of Roadhouse # 312. 14 During the time that plaintiff worked with Austin, he was undergoing a trans-gender sex-change.15 During the conversion, “his” behavior became increasingly bizarre. For example, one night in 2007, Austin removed his “breast” from his shirt and, in plaintiff's presence, “squirted milk” across the bar.16 That same evening, he tried to kiss a fellow employee.17 On another occasion in 2007, Austin asked plaintiff—who apparently did not adhere to traditional female gender roles 18—to kiss him, and to touch his “breasts.” 19 Austin also had a “temper.” 20 He yelled at plaintiff and other employees, and threw plates, tongs, knives, glasses, and sauté pans without concern for whom or what the objects might strike.21 When plaintiff or other employees organized areas of the restaurant, Austin came behind them and changed everything they had done.22 Plaintiff says that she complained to David Rodriguez, defendant's “Regional Manager” of the geographic area that encompassed Logan's Roadhouse # 312,23 about Austin's behavior on three occasions: the first time during May of 2008, and then again in July and on August 25th of the same year,24 but Rodriguez denied that she did so.25 She also says that she complained to Jim Edwards,26 who was the General Manager of Roadhouse # 312 until the end of July 2008.27 She says that she told Edwards that Austin was “harassing” other employees, and that he singled out women for his “harassment,” 28 but Edwards took no corrective action.

Thomas Moody was the second employee about whom plaintiff complained. He was an hourly-wage employee in the Florence Roadhouse who initially was hired as a server, but later had bartender functions added to his serving duties.29 According to plaintiff, he told sexual jokes, uttered gender slurs, and made offensive hand motions in the presence of female employees. 30 He also touched female employees in an inappropriate manner, ran his hands through their hair, and grabbed their buttocks.31 Plaintiff assisted another restaurant employee, Ginger Thompson, to lodge a written complaint against Moody on some date that is not clearly stated in the evidentiary materials presented to this court, but which would have occurred sometime prior to Thompson's last date of employment in September of 2006. 32 Plaintiff delivered Thompson's complaint to Paul Tompkins, who then was General Manager of the Florence Roadhouse, and he said that he would let Jim Edwards handle it since ... Thomas Moody and Jim Edwards were ... very close friends.” 33 Afterwards, Moody's behavior improved.34

B. Company Policies Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Fraternization

It is not disputed that defendant prohibited discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace, and provided several mechanisms for employees to report any alleged incidents of such misconduct.35 The following statements are copied from the defendant's “Restaurant Management Handbook.” 36

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

* * * * * *

Logan's will not tolerate any form of discrimination, harassment or retaliation affecting its employees or applicants due to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, marital status, medical condition, or disability.

Employees who believe they have been subjected to unlawful or unfair discrimination, harassment, or retaliation must immediately advise their General Manager or Regional Manager. In addition, you can always call the Employee Relations Department toll-free at (800) 815–9056, extension 1225 to report issues or concerns about your employment at Logan's. You are also strongly encouraged to report inappropriate conduct that you observe, whether or not it affects you directly.

The company's anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies are intended to result in effective responses to problems. They require you to provide the company an immediate opportunity to investigate and resolve your workplace concerns. You must notify your restaurant General Manager, Regional Manager, or the Employee Relations Department at the above number...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Anderson v. City of Homewood, Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • December 27, 2016
    ...(M.D.Ala. 2009) (citing Stevenson v. Precision Standard, Inc., 762 So. 2d 820, 824 (Ala. 1999)); see also Andazola v. Logan's Roadhouse Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 1186, 1225 (N.D.Ala. 2012) ("However, not just any 'incompetency' suffices to give rise to a cause of action for so-called 'negligent h......
  • Cressman v. Thompson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma
    • May 16, 2012
  • Waite v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • November 2, 2018
    ...622 F.2d 1222, 1223 (5th Cir. 1980); Payne v. Crane Co., 560 F.2d 198, 199 (5th Cir. 1977); see also Andazola v. Logan's Roadhouse, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 1186, 1208-09 (N.D. Ala. 2012). The record could hardly be clearer that nothing communicated to Plaintiff by Dr. Sorge, Quinn, Roberson, ......
  • Waltz v. Jonathan Wade Dunning, an Individual, & Birmingham Healthcare, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • December 31, 2014
    ...scope of his employment; or (3) [Synergy] participated in, authorized, or ratified the tortious acts." Andazola v. Logan's Roadhouse Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 1186, 1223 (N.D. Ala. 2012) (quoting Ex parte Atmore Cmty. Hosp., 719 So. 2d 1190, 1194 (Ala. 1998) (alterations supplied) (citing Potts......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT