Beaulieu v. Northrop Grumman Corp.

• Decision Date: 28 September 2000
• Docket Number: CIV. No. 99-538 ACK.,CIV. No. 99-537 ACK.
• Citation: Beaulieu v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 161 F.Supp.2d 1135 (Haw. 2000)
• Parties: Roger Joseph BEAULIEU, Plaintiff, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, Defendant. Roger Joseph Beaulieu, Plaintiff, v. Adecco Employment Services, Inc., Defendant.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

161 F.Supp.2d 1135

Roger Joseph BEAULIEU, Plaintiff, v.NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, Defendant.

Roger Joseph Beaulieu, Plaintiff, v.Adecco Employment Services, Inc., Defendant.

CIV. No. 99-537 ACK.

CIV. No. 99-538 ACK.

United States District Court, D. Hawai`i.

September 28, 2000.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Roger Joseph Beaulieu, Mililani, HI, pro se.

William C.H. Jarrett, Honolulu, HI, for plaintiff.

Terry E. Thomason, Jonathan A. Swanson, Carlsmith Ball Wichman Murray Case Mukai & Ichiki, Honolulu, HI, for Northrop Grumman Corporation.

Gary Y. Shigemura, Law Offices of Gary Y. Shigemura, Honolulu, HI, for Adecco Employment Services, Inc.

Junsuke Otsuka, Law Offices of Gary Y. Shigemura, Randall N. Harakal, Harakal

& Hoshino Law Offices, Honolulu, HI, for Adecco, fka TAD Technical Services, Inc.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTADECCO EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT NORTHROP'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IN WHICH DEFENDANT ADECCO JOINS, AS TO ALL CLAIMS.

KAY, District Judge.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of PlaintiffRoger Joseph Beaulieu's ("Plaintiff") termination of employment with DefendantsADECCO Employment Services, Inc.("ADECCO") and Northrop Grumman Corporation("Northrop").It was disputed whether Northrop was Plaintiff's employer.Plaintiff alleges both federal and state law claims of disability discrimination, harassment, retaliation, age discrimination, and various state tort law violations.

In 1993, Plaintiff executed an employment contract with Kirk Mayer, Inc.(predecessor to ADECCO), a staffing agency, that provided workers to Westinghouse (predecessor to Northrop).Plaintiff was originally assigned to a Northrop facility in Newport, RI, then transferred to New London, CT, and in September, 1993 was transferred to Pearl Harbor, HI, where he worked as an ADECCO employee for ADECCO's client Northrop until his termination on July 29, 1997.Plaintiff worked at the Progressive Depot Level Repair (PDLR) facility in Pearl Harbor.Plaintiff was assigned to provide the support services required by Northrop to fulfill Northrop's541 ATE Contract with the Navy.

While at the PDLR facility, Plaintiff's salary, employment benefits, and tax withholdings were paid by TAD Technical Services (successor to Kirk Mayer, Inc. and predecessor to ADECCO).Plaintiff's direct supervisors were Northrop employees.Plaintiff's supervisors set his working hours, assigned him projects, and reported disciplinary problems to ADECCO.

Plaintiff was diagnosed with Type II, non-insulin dependant diabetes in 1990.Plaintiff controls his diabetes with exercise, diet, maintaining set intervals between meals, and also takes a medication called Glucophage.Plaintiff tries to always take his medication approximately 30 minutes prior to eating (although the instructions for Glucophage advise taking the medication with one's meals).Arriving at work 10-15 minutes after 7:00 (when other employees arrive at work) allowed Plaintiff to take his medication 30 minutes before eating and maintain his customary interval between breakfast and lunch.

On or about December 1996, Northrop employee Dennis Holt became the Plaintiff's supervisor.Prior to Mr. Holt's assignment to the PDLR facility, Plaintiff had worked on a "flex schedule" that allowed him to arrive to work later than the other employees (usually 10-15 minutes).After Mr. Holt became supervisor, he verbally reprimanded Plaintiff for arriving late to work.Plaintiff explained that he arrived late due to his eating schedule and the slowness of the restaurant he frequented.Mr. Holt suggested that the Plaintiff either eat at home, get take-out, or eat on the base.It was Mr. Holt's practice to require his entire staff to meet with him every morning at 7:00 a.m.On January 14, 1997 Mr. Holt wrote a memorandum to Plaintiff concerning his chronic tardiness.Plaintiff contacted Mr. Holt's supervisor, Northrop employee Lee Smalley and another Northrop employee, Manuel Macedo, in order to request permission to arrive at work later than fellow employees.Both Smalley and Macedo denied Plaintiff's request.On February 18, 1997, Mr. Holt wrote a second memorandum to Plaintiff because Plaintiff continued to arrive late to work.Thereafter Plaintiff arrived to work on time.

On June 6, 1997, Mr. Holt asked Plaintiff to stop work on one project and complete another task.In the presence of visiting officials from the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport Division, Newport, Rhode Island, Plaintiff responded to Mr. Holt's request by yelling "You are a fucking asshole" at Mr. Holt.The Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport Division, Newport, Rhode Island supervises all Naval operations at the PDLR facility, including work performed under Navy contracts.Mr. Holt prepared a memorandum documenting the June 6, 1997 incident with the Plaintiff and forwarded it to Mr. Smalley.Mr. Smalley forwarded the memorandum to Bruce Ingleright of ADECCO.

On July, 29, 1997, in the presence of Mr. Holt and Mr. Smalley, Plaintiff was terminated by Mr. Orelli of ADECCO by telephone.Plaintiff was 61 years of age at the time of his termination.

In 1997, the Department of the Navy began to phase out the 541 ATE.Northrop's541 ATE Contract with the Navy was not renewed and terminated in September 1997.Northrop did not hire any employees to complete the work that Plaintiff was responsible for under the 541 ATE Contract.

On July 30, 1997, Plaintiff filed charges against Northrop with the EEOC and received a Right to Sue letter on May 4, 1999.On July 28, 1999Plaintiff filed an Employment Discrimination Complaint.Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on August 20, 1999.

On March 4, 1998, Plaintiff filed charges against ADECCO with the EEOC and received a Right to Sue Letter on May 24, 1999.On July 28, 1999, Plaintiff filed an Employment Discrimination Complaint.On August 20, 1999, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

On November 3, 1999Plaintiff's two employment discrimination suits were consolidated.Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 14, 2000 after the consolidation.

Defendant Northrop filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on August 18, 2000 and filed a Separate and Concise Statement on Facts in support on the same day.Defendant ADECCO filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on August 21, 2000 and filed a Separate and Concise Statement of Facts in support on the same day.On August 22, 2000, ADECCO filed a Partial Joinder in Northrop's Motion for Summary Judgment.Plaintiff filed Memorandums in Opposition to Northrop and ADECCO's Motions for Summary Judgment on September 4, 2000 and filed Separate Concise Statements of Fact in support the same day.Plaintiff filed an Errata Re: Memorandum in Opposition to Northrop's Motion for Summary Judgment on September 6, 2000 and a Separate and Concise Statement of Fact on the same day.

On September 12, 2000, Defendant ADECCO filed a Stipulation for Partial Dismissal with Prejudice for Counts III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, X, XI, and XIII as between Defendant ADECCO and Plaintiff.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment shall be granted where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.SeeFed. R.Civ.P. 56(c).The standard for summary adjudication is the same.SeeState of Cal v. Campbell,138 F.3d 772, 780(9th Cir.1998).One of the principal purposes of the summary judgment procedure is to identify and dispose of factually unsupported claims and defenses.SeeCelotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265(1986).

The United States Supreme Court has declared that summary judgment must be granted against a party who fails to demonstrate facts to establish an element essential to his case where that party will bear the burden of proof of that essential element at trial.Seeid. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548."If the party moving for summary judgment meets its initial burden of identifying for the court the portions of the materials on file that it believes demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact [citations omitted], the non-moving party may not rely on the mere allegations in the pleadings in order to preclude summary judgment."T.W. Elec. Serv. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n,809 F.2d 626, 630(9th Cir.1987).

Rather, Rule 56(e) requires that the nonmoving party set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.Seeid. at 630.At least some "significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint" must be produced.Id.Legal memoranda and oral argument are not evidence and do not create issues of fact capable of defeating an otherwise valid motion for summary judgment.SeeBritish Airways Bd. v. Boeing Co.,585 F.2d 946, 952(9th Cir.1978).

The standard for a grant of summary judgment reflects the standard governing the grant of a directed verdict.SeeEisenberg v. Ins. Co. of North America,815 F.2d 1285, 1289(9th Cir.1987)(citingAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202(1986)).Thus, the question is whether "reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the evidence."Anderson,477 U.S. at 250-51, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

The Ninth Circuit has established that "[n]o longer can it be argued that any disagreement about a material issue of fact precludes the use of summary judgment."California Architectural Bldg. Products, Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc.,818 F.2d 1466, 1468(9th Cir.1987).Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has stated that "[w]hen the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts."Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89...