Batayias v. Mech. Shop
| Decision Date | 14 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-cv-00015 |
| Parties | HEATHER BATAYIAS, Plaintiff, v. THE MECHANICAL SHOP and LOCAL UNION 188 UA, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
This action arises out of the sexual harassment and wrongful termination allegedly suffered by Plaintiff Heather Batayias1 during her employment with Defendant The Mechanical Shop ("TMS"). (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff sued Defendant TMS as well as Defendant Local Union 188 UA ("Local 188") (collectively "Defendants") for alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). (Id. at pp. 5-6.) Specifically, she asserts that Defendants created a hostile work environment through sexual harassment, discriminated against her because of her gender, and retaliated against her in violation of the statute.2 (Id.) Plaintiff also seeks attorney'sfees and punitive damages. (Id. at p. 6.) Presently before the Court is TMS's Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 22), and Local 188's Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 25). Plaintiff filed a Response to these Motions, (doc. 38), and Local 188 thereafter filed a Reply, (doc. 40). Given the similarity of the issues and claims concerning the Defendants, the Court addresses the Motions for Summary Judgment concurrently. The Court finds that Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence for her Title VII sexual harassment hostile work environment claim against TMS to survive summary judgment. In addition, her claim for attorney's fees survives to the extent it is based on her Title VII sexual harassment hostile work environment claim. Accordingly, the Court DENIES summary judgment on these claims. (Docs. 22.) However, the Court GRANTS TMS's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's remaining claims, (doc. 22), and GRANTS Local 188's Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety, (doc. 25), as Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to create a jury issue on these claims.
Plaintiff, who is a female, has worked as a welder for more than ten years. (Doc. 26-1, pp. 3, 31.) Plaintiff was initially a member of Local 188, (id. at p. 5), the recognized collective bargaining representative for pipe fitters and welders in several counties in south Georgia, (see generally doc. 26-6). However, in 2013, Plaintiff ended her membership with Local 188 and transferred to Local 228, which is based in California. (Doc. 26-1, pp. 6-9; doc. 26-8, p. 1.) Plaintiff eventually returned to Local 188's jurisdiction, but she did not transfer her membershipback to Local 188. (Doc. 26-1, p. 14.) Because she did not transfer her membership back, Local 188 considered her to be a "traveler" (as opposed to a "local") worker while she was back within its jurisdiction. (Doc. 26-2, p. 10.)
After returning to Local 188's jurisdiction, Plaintiff began working for TMS sometime in mid-April 2017. (See doc. 26-1, pp. 14, 28.) TMS specializes in industrial pipefitting, (doc. 26-3, p. 9), and hired Plaintiff to work as a welder on a project, (doc. 26-1, pp. 14-15). Plaintiff initially worked in a group led by Jimmy Ulmer, who was a foreman on the worksite. (Id. at p. 16.) In addition to Ulmer, Plaintiff also reported to Brian Gracen, the general foreman, and Marlon Garrison, the superintendent. (Id.) At the end of her first day on the job, she checked her cellphone and found that one of her coworkers, Brian Vescelus, had sent her several messages through Facebook's messenger function. (Id. at p. 17.) Plaintiff knew Vescelus before she started working for TMS, and she had been friends with his wife several years earlier, but she had never previously received or exchanged messages with him. (Id.) The messages from Vescelus included comments about Plaintiff's appearance and invitations to get together outside of work.3 (Id.) In his finalmessage that day, Vescelus stated that he was "hornier than a two-pecker billy goat" because he no longer had sexual intercourse with his wife and asked Plaintiff to have sex with him. (Id.) Plaintiff testified in her deposition that she was offended by the messages. (Id. at pp. 17-18.)
Either that day or the next, Plaintiff told Ulmer and James Burrows, who was another foreman on the worksite, about the Facebook messages. (Id. at p. 19.) She asked that they keep Vescelus away from her. (Id. at p. 20.) For the rest of that week, Plaintiff and Vescelus worked in different areas (as they already had been on the first day of work), and Plaintiff experienced no problems with him. (Id.) Sometime during the next week, Gracen and Garrison approached Plaintiff and told her that they needed her to work in a different area in order to maintain their schedule. (Id.) Plaintiff said to them, "[P]lease don't put me over there" in closer contact with Vescelus, explaining to them that "he has not been able to control himself . . . and it will not be good" if they did not continue to be separated. (Id. at p. 19.) She then showed Gracen and Garrison the Facebook messages, which, according to Plaintiff, they laughed at. (Id. at pp. 19, 20.) After Gracen repeatedly "begged" her to "please" go weld in Vescelus's area, she agreed and commented, "If I go over there and [Vescelus] lays a hand on me, there's going to be big, big consequences." (Id. at p. 20.) Gracen told Plaintiff that he would keep an eye on the situation. (Id. at p. 22.)
When Plaintiff arrived at the new work area, Vescelus began mouthing "I love you" at her. (Id. at p. 23.) Plaintiff says this occurred multiple times. (Id. at p. 24.) A few days after this, Vescelus touched Plaintiff's buttocks while she was welding. (Id. at p. 26.) Plaintiff reported this to Mike Barthelmess, who was also a foreman. (Id. at p. 24.) She says Barthelmess did nothing to address her concerns. (Id.) Later that same day, Plaintiff and Barthelmess got into an argumentabout a piece of equipment. (Id. at p. 25.) Barthelmess yelled at Plaintiff and told her to leave the worksite. (Id.) When she refused to do so, Barthelmess left. (Id.) Just after that, Randy Jones, one of the owners of TMS, approached Plaintiff. (Id.; doc. 26-3, pp. 16-17, 32.) Plaintiff told Jones about what had happened with Barthelmess and Vescelus, and Jones said that he would "fix it." (Doc. 26-1, p. 25.)
Right after her conversation with Jones, Plaintiff called Local 188 and told Barry Zeigler, the business manager there, that she wished to file a grievance against Barthelmess and Vescelus. (Id. at pp. 31-32.) According to Plaintiff, Zeigler refused to file a grievance for her. (Id.) However, Plaintiff still had the ability to file a grievance at either Local 188 or with the international union, and Zeigler could not prevent her from doing this. (Doc. 26-2, pp. 7-8; see also doc. 38-2, pp. 6-7 ().)
Jones "immediately" moved Plaintiff to another work area where she was not near either Vescelus or Barthelmess for the rest of the workday. (Doc. 26-1, pp. 25-26, 32.) At the end of the same day, however, as the TMS employees were boarding a truck that would take them to their personal vehicles in a nearby parking lot, Vescelus grabbed onto Plaintiff's chest. (Doc. 26-1, pp. 26-27.) Plaintiff reported this to Jones the next day. (Id. at p. 28.) That day, Jones conducted an investigation, and the following day he fired Vescelus. (Doc. 26-3, pp. 17-19.) Plaintiff did not experience any problems at the worksite after this. (Doc. 26-1, p. 29.)
When Plaintiff's job with TMS was nearing its end, she asked Jones if she could continue to work for him on TMS's next project. (Id. at p. 34.) According to Plaintiff, Jones told her that he would use her for his next job and that he planned "to hang on to [her] for a little while." (Id.at pp. 34-35.) At this time, TMS had another construction project lined up, but Jones later learned that it would require fewer workers than he initially estimated, forcing him to lay off some individuals. (Doc. 26-3, p. 29.) TMS dismissed Plaintiff during this layoff. (Id. at p. 30.) After the layoff, all the remaining workers for the next job were men. (Doc. 26-5, pp. 9-10.)
When the number of workers needed for a project is limited, Jones operates under a rule where he lays off all travelers before laying off any members of Local 188. (Doc. 26-3, p. 30.) Jones testified that he applied this rule in the aforedescribed situation, and he thus discharged Plaintiff in light of her traveler status. (Id.) In his own deposition, foreman Gracen testified that Plaintiff was dismissed because of "[l]ack of work." (Doc. 26-5, p. 8.) He stated that Plaintiff was "[n]ot necessarily" fired because she was a traveler, and he explained that the next job was going to be "strenuous," requiring some "roughnecks" to "tear stuff down and [do] demo work," and he did not think Plaintiff was the best fit. (Id.) While Gracen worked with Jones to help decide who to layoff, (id. at p. 8), Jones made the ultimate call to dismiss Plaintiff, (doc. 26-3, p. 30).
Plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (doc. 38-3), and obtained a right to sue letter, (doc. 38-4). Plaintiff then filed her Complaint initiating this suit on January 17, 2019. (Doc. 1.) The Complaint alleges the Defendants violated Title VII by discriminating against Plaintiff on the basis of gender through both disparate treatment and sexual harassment and by retaliating against her for engaging in actions protected by the statute. (Id. at pp. 5-6.) She also seeks attorney's fees and punitive damages. (Id. at p. 6.) Both TMS and Local 188 filed Motions for Summary Judgment. (Docs. 22, 25.) Plaintiff filed a Response challenging TMS and Local 188's Motions, (doc. 38), and Local 188 filed a Reply, (doc. 40)...
To continue reading
Request your trial