Aquamina v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 08 May 1981
• Docket Number: No. 79-3823,79-3823
• Citation: 644 F.2d 506
• Parties: 27 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 652, 26 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,833 Phillip AQUAMINA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EASTERN AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District # 100, a labor organization, Defendants-Appellees. Summary Calendar. . Unit B
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 506

644 F.2d 506

27 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 652,

26 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,833

Phillip AQUAMINA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EASTERN AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District # 100, a labor organization Defendants-Appellees.

No. 79-3823

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Unit B

May 8, 1981.

Phillip Aquamina, pro se.

Carmen L. Leon, Miami, Fla., for Eastern Airlines, Inc.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before RONEY, FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr. and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

HENDERSON, Circuit Judge.

Phillip Aquamina appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the appellees Eastern Airlines, Inc. (Eastern) and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District # 100 (District # 100) in this action for wrongful dismissal from employment on the basis of race. ¹

After considering the evidence filed with and in response to the appellees' motions for summary judgment, the trial court upheld the decision of the System Board of Adjustment (SBA or Board) that Aquamina's discharge was justified by his unauthorized absence from work ² and an unsatisfactory work record. ³ The Board found no evidence that race was a factor in Aquamina's termination. ⁴ Furthermore, the district court concluded that Aquamina had been given a full and adequate SBA hearing at which he was ably represented ⁵ by a District # 100 staff representative. Thus the district court held that there was no clear proof of a discriminatory, bad faith breach of the duty of fair representation by District # 100. See Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554, 96 S.Ct. 1048, 47 L.Ed.2d 231 (1976); Coe v. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, 571 F.2d 1349 (5th Cir. 1978).

Aquamina would have us draw an inference of discrimination from the fact that a white worker, Gerald R. Kincaid, who was charged with virtually the same offense committed on the same day in 1976 ⁶ and represented by the same union staff member at the same hearing before the same panel, was disciplined with suspension only. We cannot attribute this disparate treatment to race.

As the SBA pointed out in its decision in Kincaid's case, his testimony was direct and made in apparent good faith. He stated that he had attempted to notify the supervisor that he had returned home briefly to check on his companion who had been injured in an automobile accident. ⁷ Kincaid had been employed by Eastern for nine years and the neutral SBA board member described him as an exemplary employee. Despite the fact that Kincaid had been temporarily terminated in 1973, there was no evidence of improper conduct since that restoration to duty.

Conversely, Aquamina's discharge was the culmination of a continuing record of work violations. Although in 1975 the discharge for a time card violation had been reduced to suspension, Aquamina's work conduct had been unsatisfactory for several years before and continued to be inadequate thereafter. ⁸ Aquamina's statement that he had received permission to leave the jobsite was directly refuted. ⁹ Finally, the deciding vote in the SBA decision to uphold Aquamina's discharge was that of the neutral board member.

The appellant fails to raise any issue of fact indicative of racially discriminatory conduct by Eastern. To prevail below as a matter of law, Aquamina had the burden of demonstrating that he was discharged on the basis of race and that any legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for discharge articulated by the employer were merely pretextual. White v. Ed Miller & Sons, Inc., 457 F.Supp. 148 (D.Neb.1978). Eastern's termination procedure was neutral in design and practice; it did not have the effect of screening out members of a protected group at a disproportionately higher rate. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); Griggs Quarles v. Philip Morris, Inc., 279 F.Supp. 505 (E.D.Va.1968). Because Aquamina could not have carried his burden with the facts he presented, Eastern was entitled to summary judgment. Similarly, there was no evidence that District # 100 wilfully failed to represent Aquamina fairly. Hence, the summary judgment in its favor must also be sustained.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

1 Aquamina sought damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the First, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. He contends that he was discriminatorily discharged by Eastern and that District # 100 wilfully failed to fairly represent him in the disciplinary hearings.

2 On April 22, 1976, Aquamina was observed leaving the jobsite while on duty as a stock clerk. He was absent from 12:55 a. m. to 1:37 a. m. When challenged by his supervisors upon his return, Aquamina explained that it had become necessary for him to go home to check the condition of his two...