Benson v. Vaughn Indus. LLC, No. 5:18-CV-468-D
| Court | United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | JAMES C. DEVER III, United States District Judge |
| Citation | 450 F.Supp.3d 655 |
| Parties | Demetrius BENSON, Jabril Muhammad, and Terrance Foster, Plaintiffs, v. VAUGHN INDUSTRIES LLC, Defendant. |
| Docket Number | No. 5:18-CV-468-D |
| Decision Date | 31 March 2020 |
450 F.Supp.3d 655
Demetrius BENSON, Jabril Muhammad, and Terrance Foster, Plaintiffs,
v.
VAUGHN INDUSTRIES LLC, Defendant.
No. 5:18-CV-468-D
United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division.
Signed March 31, 2020
Wilson F. Fong, Hensel Law, PLLC, Greensboro, NC, for Plaintiffs.
David T. Andrews, Andrews Law, LLC, Twinsburg, OH, Kerry A. Shad, Taylor M. Dewberry, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, Patrick D. Lawler, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Raleigh, NC, for Defendant.
ORDER
JAMES C. DEVER III, United States District Judge
On September 27, 2018, Demetrius Benson, Jabril Muhammad, and Terrance Foster (collectively, "plaintiffs") filed a complaint against Vaughn Industries, LLC ("Vaughn," or "defendant") under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 alleging race discrimination and retaliation. See Compl. [D.E. 1]. On June 20, 2019, Vaughn moved for summary judgment [D.E. 20, 21, 26, 27]. On July 5, 2019, plaintiffs responded in opposition [D.E. 22, 23, 24]. On October 2, 2019, Vaughn replied [D.E. 33]. As explained below, the court grants Vaughn's motion for summary judgment.
I.
Vaughn is an electrical construction contractor based in Carey, Ohio, with an office and warehouse in Wilson, North Carolina. See Tschanen Aff. [D.E. 27-1] ¶ 1.1 In 2016, Vaughn began a project in Wilson to build eight solar fields (the "Wilson Project"). See id. In order to staff the Wilson Project, Vaughn retained Mobile Construction Mechanics ("MCM"), Spencer Ogden, Inc. ("Spencer Ogden"), and other temporary employment agencies. See Blair Aff. [D.E. 27-2] ¶ 1; Tschanen Aff. ¶ 3. In order to help Vaughn staff the Wilson Project, MCM hired Demetrius Benson ("Benson") and Jabril Muhammad ("Muhammad"), and Spencer Ogden hired Terrance Foster ("Foster"). See Benson Dep. [D.E.27-3] 12–13;2 Muhammad Dep. [D.E.27-4] 7; Foster Dep. [D.E. 27-5] 8. On September 13, 2016, plaintiffs, all African-American males, began their work as journeyman
electricians on the Wilson Project. See Benson Dep. at 13; Muhammad Dep. at 7; Foster Dep. at 8; Blair Aff. ¶ 2. Plaintiffs were not Vaughn employees, but rather three of the 500 temporary workers hired to help Vaughn complete the Wilson Project. See Blair Aff. ¶ 2; Tschanen Aff. ¶ 3.
Benson became a Quality Control ("QC") Lead shortly after beginning work on the Wilson Project. See Benson Dep. at 15. Benson also supervised electricians on site and reported to Mike Savage, a Vaughn project scheduler. See id.; Tschanen Aff. ¶ 7. Savage made an "unofficial" suggestion to Benson that Benson might have an opportunity to become a QC Supervisor for Vaughn. See Benson Dep. at 15–16. Savage did not mention the position's pay or benefits, but told Benson that he would initiate the hiring process at Vaughn for Benson. See id. at 16. Benson did not see any paperwork concerning the position and never applied to Vaughn for the position. See id. After Savage spoke with Benson about the QC Supervisor opportunity, Benson went on vacation for a week. See id. When Benson returned from vacation, Benson learned that Vaughn had just hired Tim Rice ("Rice") as QC Supervisor. See id.; Blair Aff. ¶ 4.
On November 15, 2016, Vaughn hired Rice as QC Supervisor. See Blair Aff. ¶ 4. Savage told Benson that he had presented Benson's name to Savage's supervisors, but that they had decided to go in "a different direction." Benson Dep. at 16. The QC Supervisor job description included the requirement that the applicant have the "ability to supervise and manage complex construction projects and crews as assigned." Tschanen Aff., Ex. B. at 10. Brian Tschanen ("Tschanen"), Division Manager for Vaughn's Wilson Project, hired Rice "due to his extensive experience in installation, maintenance, operation, and inspection in the energy industry." Tschanen Aff. ¶ 8. Benson never applied for the QC Supervisor position or interviewed for it. See Benson Dep. at 17; Upchurch Dec. [D.E. 27-6] ¶ 7.3 Before hiring Rice, Tschanen did not consider Benson for the QC Supervisor position, and heard from Savage only that Benson was interested in a full-time position with Vaughn. See Tschanen Aff. ¶ 8. Savage did not present Benson to Tschanen as a candidate for the QC Supervisor position. See id.
On November 16, 2016, Scott Dawson ("Dawson"), a Wilson Project foreman, received a complaint that Rice had made racist and homophobic comments when giving instructions to employees. See id. at ¶ 9; Upchurch Dec. ¶ 4. Brenda Upchurch ("Upchurch"), Human Resources Coordinator for Vaughn in Wilson, investigated the complaint and obtained statements from ten people who heard Rice's comments, including plaintiffs. See Upchurch Dec. ¶ 4; Blair Aff. ¶¶ 5–6. JoAnn Blair ("Blair"), Human Resources Manager for Vaughn, reviewed the statements, spoke to Upchurch, and recommended to Tschanen that Vaughn terminate Rice's employment for violating Vaughn's equal employment and anti-harassment policy. See Blair Aff. ¶ 7; Tschanen Aff. ¶ 9; Upchurch Dec. ¶ 4. On November 18, 2016, Vaughn terminated Rice's employment. See Blair Aff. ¶ 7; Upchurch Dec. ¶ 5.
After Rice's termination, Vaughn did not seek to hire or promote anyone to fill the QC Supervisor position. See Tschanen Aff. ¶ 10. Initially, Savage assumed the responsibilities of the QC Supervisor position, and then Dan Carmean, a Vaughn employee since October 2012 who had QC and supervisory experience, assumed the responsibilities.
See id. On February 6, 2017, Vaughn formally promoted Carmean to QC Supervisor and increased his pay. See id.; Blair Aff., Ex. B at 13.
Plaintiffs continued to work on the Wilson Project after Rice's termination. See Benson Dep. at 21; Muhammad Dep. at 11; Foster Dep. at 12–13. Benson and Muhammad claim that their responsibilities changed in late December 2017 from working on the Wilson Project in the field to warehouse work, but admit that their pay and benefits did not change. See Benson Dep. at 21; Muhammad Dep. at 11–12.
On January 5, 2017, Tschanen submitted to Upchurch a list of 47 temporary employees for termination because of a manpower reduction on the Wilson Project. See Tschanen Aff. ¶¶ 5–6; Tschanen Aff., Exs. at 6; Upchurch Dec. ¶ 8; Upchurch Dec., Exs. at 17–19. The list of 47 temporary employees included plaintiffs. See Tschanen Aff. ¶ 5. Tschanen developed the list of 47 temporary employees based on input from crew leaders concerning temporary employee "work performance, skill set, attendance, and overall contribution to the work site." Id. These layoffs were part of Vaughn's larger wind down of the Wilson Project, with Vaughn terminating a total of 85 temporary employees in the months before plaintiffs' termination. See Tschanen Aff. ¶ 4; Blair Aff. ¶ 9. Specifically, Vaughn terminated 22 temporary employees on November 22, 2016, 24 temporary employees between December 5–7, 2016, and 39 more temporary employees by the end of December 2016. See Tschanen Aff. ¶ 4; Blair Aff. ¶ 9.
On January 6, 2017, Upchurch emailed MCM and Spencer Ogden that plaintiffs and five other temporary workers were to be terminated due to manpower reductions. See Upchurch Dec. ¶ 9; Blair Aff. ¶ 11. Upchurch's email at 3:04 PM stated:
* *Due to manpower cutbacks, please release the following IMMEDIATELY* *
They are NOT onsite today
Please let me know when you have contacted them, please advise them NOT to call nor return to VI sites.
Upchurch Dec., Exs. at 21–22. At 3:47 PM on that same date, Jason Herceg of MCM replied that Benson and Muhammad were on site and had been working in the warehouse all week. See id.; Benson Dep. at 22. At 5:56 PM on that same date, Upchurch responded: "Jason ... I am so sorry ... I didn't know they were working at the warehouse .... these two were totally my fault, I didn't know they were there." Id. at 21. Before sending her email at 3:04 PM, Upchurch did not see that Benson and Muhammad logged in on the time system and assumed they were not on site. See Upchurch Dec. ¶ 9. According to Upchurch, "[t]heir presence or absence at work was immaterial as they had been included on the list of manpower reductions that was provided to me on January 4[, 2017]." Id. On January 6, 2017, the temporary agencies terminated the 47 employees on the list, including the plaintiffs. See Tschanen Aff. ¶¶ 5–6; Upchurch Dec. ¶ 9; see also Benson Dep. at 22; Muhammad Dep. at 10–11; Foster Dep. at 13.
On January 6, 2017, Benson and Muhammad received notice of their terminations from MCM, who initially told them it was because they were not at work. See Benson Dep. at 22; Muhammad Dep. at 10. Benson and Muhammad took photos of their time sheets and warehouse equipment for MCM to demonstrate that they were at work on January 6, 2017. See Benson Dep. at 22; Muhammad Dep. at 10. MCM replied that Benson and Muhammad had already been terminated and that they had to leave the Wilson Project work site. See Benson Dep. at 22; Muhammad Dep.
at 10. Benson and Muhammad then went to the main office of Vaughn's Wilson Project work site to ask about their termination...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pouncey v. Guilford Cnty., 1:18CV1022
...performance, and skills is not relevant. It is the perception of the decisionmaker that counts." Benson v. Vaughn Indus. LLC, 450 F. Supp. 3d 655, 666 (E.D.N.C. 2020). While Plaintiff may believe she was supremely qualified for a promotion, her own view of her fitness for the job is ir......
-
Hubbard v. S.C. Dep't of Mental Health, Civil Action 3:20-cv-002482-JMC
...249. “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of plaintiff's position is insufficient.” Benson v. Vaughn Indus., LLC, 450 F.Supp.3d 655, 663 (E.D. N.C. 2020) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252; Beale v. Hardy, 769 F.2d 213, 214 (4th Cir. 1985) (“The nonmoving party, however,......
-
Robinson v. Honda, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-00318-DSC
...through the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) burden shifting approach. See Benson v. Vaughn Indus. LLC, 450 F. Supp. 3d 655, 663 (E.D.N.C. 2020). To establish a prima facie McDonnell unlawful demotion claim, Plaintiffs must show (i) they are a member of a protected clas......
-
Moore v. Safehome Sys., 7:21cv452
...and (4) he was treated differently than a similarly situated employee outside the protected class.” Benson v. Vaughn Indus. LLC, 450 F.Supp.3d 655, 667 (E.D. N.C. 2020). [8] For a comparator from a non-protected class to be considered “similarly situated” a plaintiff must prove they are sim......
-
Anderson v. J.A. Piper Roofing Co., 6:21-cv-02901-DCC-JDA
...and (4) he was treated differently than a similarly situated employee outside the protected class.” Benson v. Vaughn Indus. LLC, 450 F.Supp.3d 655, 667 (E.D. N.C. 2020). [4]Defendant objected to the Court's consideration of this CD as it had not been produced to them in discovery by Plainti......
-
Anderson v. J.A. Piper Roofing Co., 6:21-cv-02901-DCC-JDA
...and (4) he was treated differently than a similarly situated employee outside the protected class.” Benson v. Vaughn Indus. LLC, 450 F.Supp.3d 655, 667 (E.D. N.C. 2020). [4]Defendant objected to the Court's consideration of this CD as it had not been produced to them in discovery by Plainti......
-
Pouncey v. Guilford Cnty., 1:18CV1022
...performance, and skills is not relevant. It is the perception of the decisionmaker that counts." Benson v. Vaughn Indus. LLC, 450 F. Supp. 3d 655, 666 (E.D.N.C. 2020). While Plaintiff may believe she was supremely qualified for a promotion, her own view of her fitness for the job is irrelev......
-
Robinson v. Honda, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-00318-DSC
...through the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) burden shifting approach. See Benson v. Vaughn Indus. LLC, 450 F. Supp. 3d 655, 663 (E.D.N.C. 2020). To establish a prima facie McDonnell unlawful demotion claim, Plaintiffs must show (i) they are a member of a protected clas......