Anderson v. Waste Mgmt. of Wilmington
| Decision Date | 16 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 7:15-CV-14-FL,7:15-CV-14-FL |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Parties | EDWARD W. ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WILMINGTON, TAMMIE HOFFMAN, LAURA SNOW and DONOVAN DUKES, Defendants. |
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff's Motion in Limine [DE-23] and Motion to Take Judicial Notice [DE-31] and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [DE-24]. Plaintiff's motions are considered here for determination in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Defendants' motion to dismiss is considered here as a recommendation to the District Court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). All matters raised in the motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for a decision. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Motion in Limine [DE-23] and Motion to Take Judicial Notice [DE-31] are denied and it is recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [DE-24] be allowed.
On January 16, 2015, Plaintiff Edward W. Anderson ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Defendants Waste Management of Wilmington ("Waste Management"), Tammie Hoffman ("Hoffman"), Laura Snow ("Snow") and Donovan Dukes ("Dukes") for alleged discriminatory conduct and employment practices. [DE-1]. On the same date, the Clerk of Court issued summonses against each named party addressed to 3920 River Road, Wilmington, North Carolina 28402. [DE-3]. The Clerk of Court issued a letter to Plaintiff enclosing the summonses and advising Plaintiff to serve the summonses along with other case-opening documents upon Defendants in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [DE-4]. On May 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed five certified mail return receipts as proof of service upon Defendants. [DE-6]. On May 18, 2015, counsel for all Defendants filed a notice of appearance and promptly moved to extend the time in which to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint. [DE-7 through -11]. On May 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Defendants asserting claims of employment discrimination and wrongful discharge. [DE-18]. On June 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion in limine addressing matters presented in Plaintiff's administrative proceedings before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). [DE-23]. In lieu of filing an answer, on June 19, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(4), (5), and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [DE-24]. Defendants argue Plaintiff's summons against Waste Management is invalid as it failed to name the proper party, Plaintiff has failed to properly serve Hoffmann and Waste Management, and Plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Id.
In the Amended Complaint [DE-18], Plaintiff claims Waste Management, his former employer, terminated his employment on the basis of his race (¶¶ 37-123) and in retaliation for his opposition to discriminatory employment practices (¶¶ 124-138), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et al., and that his discharge was wrongful under North Carolina tort law (¶¶ 139-258). Plaintiff alleges he was discharged following an investigation of his alleged insubordination and misconduct made by Dukes, a supervisory employee. Id. ¶¶ 4, 14, 16.Plaintiff also seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1981A, and 1988. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. The relevant facts as alleged by Plaintiff in the Amended Complaint are summarized as follows.
Plaintiff, an African-American male, was employed by Waste Management as a Swing Driver in its commercial front loader and roll-off divisions beginning December 8, 2013 until he was terminated on July 14, 2014. Id. ¶¶ 2, 13, 15, 28. On or about July 10, 2014, when Plaintiff returned from his route, Dukes approached Plaintiff to speak with him about missed pick-ups ("MPUs"). Id. ¶ 141. Dukes pretended he wanted to have a "coaching conversation" with Plaintiff to explain how Waste Management customers were missed so that it would not happen in the future. Id. ¶¶ 143, 238. Dukes was actually not interested in showing Plaintiff anything and knew that it was Dukes, and not Plaintiff, who was in fact responsible for the customer MPUs. Id. ¶¶ 144, 239. According to Plaintiff, Dukes interfered with Plaintiff's training and learning the locations of Waste Management customers, insisting that Plaintiff complete other assignments, which resulted in the MPUs. Id. ¶¶ 181, 241. Plaintiff claims Dukes' interference was designed to ensure that Plaintiff failed in his job. Id. ¶ 181. Dukes then attempted to place the blame for his poor managerial decisions on Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 147. When Plaintiff would not accept responsibility, Dukes became agitated with Plaintiff and Plaintiff accused Dukes of being "out to get him and make him look bad." Id. ¶¶ 126, 148, 143. Dukes walked away from Plaintiff for 15 minutes, and during that time Dukes called Snow, a district manager, and reported that "[Plaintiff] continued his rant that I was out to get him and make him look bad." Id. ¶¶ 126-29, 148, 182, 243. Hoffman, the human resources manager, and Snow failed to investigate Plaintiff's complaint about Dukes, which Dukes had relayed to Snow. Id. ¶¶ 127, 129, 182. Dukes then returned and sat down with Plaintiff in an attempt to have another coaching conversation. Id. ¶¶ 126-28.
Dukes reported that Plaintiff was disgruntled, would not admit fault for missing customer routes, and that Plaintiff had been insubordinate, all of which Plaintiff denies. Id. ¶¶ 18-19. In response to the encounter between Dukes and Plaintiff, Waste Management purported to initiate an investigation into acts of insubordination and conduct by Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 3, 4. However, instead of investigating Plaintiff's complaint against Dukes, Snow told Plaintiff to take the day off and return to Waste Management the following Monday, July 14, 2014, to finish discussing Dukes' allegations. Id. ¶¶ 24, 127, 132. Plaintiff claims that the effect of Snow's instruction was either a suspension or termination. Id. ¶¶ 133, 136. Plaintiff asked Snow if he was being terminated, but Snow responded only that Plaintiff should return the following Monday. Id. ¶¶ 26-27. Plaintiff's employment was terminated when he returned to work on July 14, 2014, and the termination was upheld by Hoffman. Id. ¶¶ 7, 28.
According to Plaintiff, Waste Management "employed an elaborate scheme," in which Dukes and Snow acquiesced, using "bogus" allegations of insubordination and disciplinary infractions to harm Plaintiff and retaliate against him for opposing Waste Management's discriminatory employment practices because Plaintiff had recorded Dukes and because of Plaintiff s race. Id. ¶¶ 142, 192, 202, 237. For example, on or about May 5, 2014, Waste Management claimed Plaintiff was following a vehicle one second too closely, which Plaintiff disputed. Id. ¶ 193. Although Waste Management later agreed with Plaintiff, the infraction was noted in his employee file. Id. ¶ 256(a).1 Dukes also asked Plaintiff to sign three disciplinary infractions for Plaintiff allegedly failing to wear a hard hat in violation of company policy, which Plaintiff disputed. Id. ¶¶196-99, 256(b). Plaintiff later learned that although Dukes ultimately tore up the hard-hat write-ups, the disciplinary actions were disguised as verbal warnings and secretly placed in his employee file. Id. ¶¶ 256-58.
Plaintiff disputes that his actions were insubordinate and claims the investigation, subsequent disciplinary action, termination and the reporting process were "tainted, biased and/or implemented in a discriminatory manner." Id. ¶ 5. Plaintiff alleges Defendants denied him a fair investigation of Dukes' complaints, as required by Waste Management's employment handbook and policies. Id. ¶¶ 7, 21. Plaintiff alleges Dukes and Snow violated company policy and procedure in providing the human resources department with incomplete, false, libelous and misleading information, and Waste Management and Hoffman denied Plaintiff the opportunity to discover who, if anyone, had corroborated Dukes' frivolous accusations. Id. ¶¶ 22-23. Plaintiff asserts that his termination was in retaliation for "numerous" complaints he made regarding Waste Management's discriminatory employment practices, Dukes and Snow, and substandard collection equipment, rather than the false insubordination charge. Id. ¶¶ 224, 244. For example, on or about July 3, 2014, Defendants attempted to get Plaintiff to quit his job "soon after Plaintiff had complained about the discriminatory practices and his treatment at Waste Management" by assigning him to clean human waste in portable toilets when other drivers were available and this was not part of Plaintiff's job. Id. ¶¶ 190-91. Dukes and Snow wanted to terminate Plaintiff's employment in order to avoid being sued as a result of Plaintiff's lawsuit against Jason Jordan and the City of Wilmington, in which Dukes and Snow are named defendants. Id. ¶¶ 177-79.
Waste Management did not terminate or discipline similarly situated white co-workers, Alvie Shipman ("Shipman"), Dennis Stahl ("Stahl"), or Doug Randall ("Randall"), despite WasteManagement's knowledge of their violations of company policy. Id. ¶¶ 30, 199. For example, on or about May 21, 2014, Plaintiff was a passenger training with Shipman and witnessed Shipman engage in a verbal altercation with Dukes over a two-way radio regarding a Waste Management vehicle, during which Shipman called Dukes a liar. Id. ¶¶ 46-47, 49, 51-58. On or about May 27, 2014, at an employee safety meeting where Plaintiff was seated next to Stahl, Plaintiff witnessed Stahl curse at Dukes in response to Dukes telling Stahl the two would have a discussion after the meeting. Id. ¶¶ 69-72. On or about June 10, 2014, Plaintiff witnesses Randall exhibit "gross...
To continue reading
Request your trial