Anderson v. Sikorsky Support Servs., Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 November 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2:13–CV–208.
• Citation: 66 F.Supp.3d 863
• Parties: Manuel ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. SIKORSKY SUPPORT SERVICES, INC.; dba Sikorsky Aerospace Maintenance, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

66 F.Supp.3d 863

Manuel ANDERSON, Plaintiff

v.SIKORSKY SUPPORT SERVICES, INC.; dba Sikorsky Aerospace Maintenance, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:13–CV–208.

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Corpus Christi Division.

Signed Nov. 5, 2014.

Charles C. Smith, Attorney at Law, Corpus Christi, TX, for Plaintiff.

John L. Collins, Esteban Shardonofsky, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Houston, TX, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

NELVA GONZALES RAMOS, District Judge.

This is a race discrimination, retaliation, and racial harassment case brought by Manuel Anderson (“Plaintiff”) against his employer, Sikorsky Support Services, Inc. D/B/A Sikorsky Aerospace Maintenance (“Defendant” or “Sikorsky”). Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 21), to which Plaintiff has responded (D.E. 22) and Defendant has replied (D.E. 29). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is granted.

I. Factual Background and Claims

Plaintiff has worked for Defendant in Corpus Christi, Texas, as an aircraft mechanic in various roles and departments since July 2006, except for a short time between February 2013 and December 2013. He is still employed by Defendant.

According to Plaintiff's Original Complaint (D.E. 1), on or about May 31, 2012, Plaintiff was forced to file a police report after a coworker, Michael Duncan (“Duncan”), tailgated Plaintiff's vehicle and attacked him with a chain because of his race. He thereafter filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Texas Workforce Commission–Civil Rights Division and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on January 14, 2013. Pl. EEOC Charge, D.E. 21–8. In the categorization section, Plaintiff's Charge states that it alleges racial discrimination between April 1, 2012 and June 30, 2012. Id. Plaintiff did not check the “Continuing Action” box. Id. In the “Particulars” portion of the Charge, Plaintiff states in the entirety: “On or about June 1, 2012, I was discriminated against because of my race, African–American. I believe that I have been discriminated against due to my race, African American[,] in violation of Title VII, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.” Id.

The EEOC investigated Plaintiff's Charge of Discrimination and made a preliminary determination to dismiss the charge, stating as follows:

The available information does not support a conclusion that your race was a factor in the alleged adverse employment actions you experienced. Rather, the available evidence indicates the incident that occurred in June 2012 between you and another coworker may have been a criminal matter and not subject to the laws enforced by the EEOC.

EEOC 4/1/2013 Letter to Pl., D.E. 21–12.

On July 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed the present action complaining about the incident with Duncan, as well as alleging that other coworkers subjected him to numerous incidents of racial harassment between 2007 and 2012, and that Defendant retaliatorily denied him a lateral transfer after he complained about one of these incidents in 2007. He also claims he was retaliated against in May 2013, when a supervisor told him he could not work overtime because he had previously complained about the supervisor's conduct. Finally, Plaintiff claims that he was discriminated against because Defendant did not follow up on his reports of harassment and because managers hired their own family members into vacant positions instead of hiring various applicants that Plaintiff recommended.

Plaintiff has alleged causes of action for discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, including violations of his right to make and enforce contracts under § 1981. Defendant now moves for summary judgment on the grounds that all of Plaintiff's claims are barred as a matter of law.

II. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is proper “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) ; see also Christopher Village, LP v. Retsinas, 190 F.3d 310, 314 (5th Cir.1999). “For any matter on which the non-movant would bear the burden of proof at trial ..., the movant may merely point to the absence of evidence and thereby shift to the non-movant the burden of demonstrating by competent summary judgment proof that there is an issue of material fact warranting trial.” Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Avenell, 66 F.3d 715, 718–19 (5th Cir.1995) ; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–25, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). To prevent summary judgment, the non-movant must “respond by setting forth specific facts” that indicate a genuine issue of material fact. Rushing v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 185 F.3d 496, 505 (5th Cir.1999).

When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant. See Samuel v. Holmes, 138 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir.1998) ; Texas v. Thompson, 70 F.3d 390, 392 (5th Cir.1995). “The court may not undertake to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, weigh the evidence, or resolve factual disputes; so long as the evidence in the record is such that a reasonable jury drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party could arrive at a verdict in that party's favor, the court must deny the motion.” Int'l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263 (5th Cir.1991). However, the non-movant cannot avoid summary judgment by presenting only “conclusory allegations” or “unsubstantiated assertions,” such as the bare allegations of a complaint, but must present sufficient evidence, such as sworn testimony in a deposition or affidavit, to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the claim asserted. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc).

III. Motions to Strike

As a preliminary matter, both parties have filed objections to and/or moved to strike portions of the opposing party's summary judgment evidence. D.E. 22, 27. The Court grants Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's affidavit to the extent that it contradicts his prior deposition testimony. Copeland v. Wasserstein, 278 F.3d 472, 482 (5th Cir.2002). Regarding the other objections, the Court has considered both the evidence proffered and the parties' objections, and to the extent the Court has regarded portions of the evidence as relevant, admissible, and necessary to the resolution of particular summary judgment issues, it hereby overrules the evidentiary objections. To the extent the Court has not relied on other evidence about which the parties complain, the remaining objections are denied as moot.

IV. Analysis

A. Title VII

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) prohibits discrimination by employers “against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (4)27” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a). Before a plaintiff may file suit in federal court under Title VII, he is required to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1) ; Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 379 (5th Cir.2002). “The scope of a Title VII complaint is limited to the scope of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.” Thomas v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 220 F.3d 389, 395 (5th Cir.2000) ; Hernandez v. City of Corpus Christi, 820 F.Supp.2d 781, 793 (S.D.Tex.2011).

1. Conduct Alleged to have Violated Title VII

Plaintiff's Original Complaint alleges racial discrimination dating back to 2007 and occurring as recently as May 2013; however, because his EEOC Charge alleges discrimination between April 1, 2012 and June 30, 2012, the Court may only consider conduct alleged to have occurred during that time. See Thomas, 220 F.3d at 395 ; Hernandez, 820 F.Supp.2d at 793.

Although Plaintiff's EEOC Charge specifically references June 1, 2012, that date does not appear in his Original Complaint. The only allegations in Plaintiff's Original Complaint concerning the three-month period in question are as follows:

20. Over a two-month period beginning on or about April 1, 2012, Plaintiff was subjected to offensive and discriminatory conduct on account of his race.

21. Plaintiff spoke to Mr. Marcias about co-workers who had dragged a hangman's noose behind their golf cart in the workplace. Mr. Marcias acknowledged what Plaintiff said to him and asked Plaintiff for an opportunity to handle the problem without Plaintiff filing an EEOC complaint.

22. After the meeting with Mr. Marcias, months passed by without any explanation about the investigation or its results. Instead, on or about May 31, 2012, plaintiff had to file a police incident report when one of his coworkers, Michael Duncan[,] tailgated Plaintiff's vehicle and attacked Plaintiff with a chain. This was the latest incident Plaintiff had to endure as part of the pattern of discriminatory treatment and harassment on account of his race.

D.E. 1 ¶¶ 20–22.

2. Plaintiff's Title VII Discrimination Claim

a. Legal Standard

To establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination under Title VII, the plaintiff must show: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for his position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) he was replaced by someone outside the protected class, or that other similarly situated persons were treated more favorably. See Alvarado v. Texas Rangers, 492 F.3d 605, 611 (5th Cir.2007). An “adverse employment action” refers to an action that affects the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” See Young v. City of Houston, 906 F.2d 177, 182 (5th Cir.1990). “In [the Fifth] [C]ircuit, a plaintiff must show that the employer made an...