Booker v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC
| Decision Date | 06 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-00407-KD-M |
| Parties | DARIUS BOOKER, Plaintiff, v. WINN-DIXIE MONTGOMERY, LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 31) and supporting brief (Doc. 32) and exhibits (Doc. 33) filed by Defendant Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC ("Winn-Dixie") pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, along with Plaintiff's Response in Opposition (Doc. 37) and supporting exhibits (Doc. 38), and Winn-Dixie's Reply to said response (Doc. 43). Winn-Dixie has also filed a separate Motion to Strike (Doc. 44) regarding certain portions of Plaintiff's evidentiary submissions. After considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, and for the reasons stated herein, Winn-Dixie's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 31) is due to be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the Motion to Strike (Doc. 44) is due to be DENIED in part and is otherwise MOOT.
Plaintiff commenced this action on July 25, 2011. (Doc. 1). On March 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 17), alleging the following causes of action against Winn-Dixie: (1) Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment through sexual harassment and was constructively discharged, in violation of his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), as amended by the Civil RightsAct of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a; (2) Plaintiff received disparately lower pay and was not given a promotion on the basis of his race, in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (3) Winn-Dixie "invaded the privacy of Plaintiff, by . . . intruding into Plaintiff's private seclusion by making statements or inquiries invasive of his privacy[,]" (Doc. 17 at 9, ¶ 43), in violation of Alabama law; and (4) Winn-Dixie engaged in negligent and/or wanton supervision, training, and/or retention of its agents and employees in violation of Alabama law. The Court has jurisdiction over all claims in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1331, § 1343, § 2201, § 2202, and supplemental jurisdiction.
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Rule 56(c) governs procedures and provides as follows:
Defendant, as the party seeking summary judgment, bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). The mere existence of a factual dispute will not automatically necessitate denial; rather, only factual disputes that are material preclude entry of summary judgment. Lofton v. Sec'y of Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 358 F.3d 804, 809 (11th Cir. 2004).
If the non-moving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. In reviewing whether the non-moving party has met her burden, the Court must stop short of weighing the evidence and making credibility determinations of the truth of the matter. Instead, the evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in her favor. Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBH-Siegen, 965 F.2d 994, 998-99 (11th Cir. 1992) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Winn-Dixie owns and operates food supermarkets throughout south Alabama and other locations. (Doc. 33-5 at 2, ¶ 2). On or about November 24, 2008, Plaintiff Darius Booker ("Booker"), a black male, was hired at Winn-Dixie's Monroeville, Alabama store ("the Store") as a part-time Meat Associate in the Store's Meat Department. (Doc. 33-1 at 33-34; Doc. 33-5 at 2, 5, ¶¶ 3, 12). When first hired, every new Winn-Dixie employee is provided a copy of the company's Associate Handbook which details and explains a number of policies implemented and maintained by the company. (Doc. 33-5 at 3, ¶ 7; Doc. 38-12).
In addition to Winn-Dixie's "Equal Employment Opportunity Policy," the handbook sets out its "Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment of Associates and Applicants" ("the discrimination/harassment policy"). (Doc. 38-12 at 7-8). This policy prohibits discrimination or harassment of any Winn-Dixie associate or job applicant by anyone in the workplace based on, inter alia, the associate's or applicant's race, color, sex, or sexual orientation. (Id.). This policy forbids as sexual harassment "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, sexual innuendoes, jokes about gender-specific traits, other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, and any harassing behavior toward an Associate because of the Associate's gender . . .[which] explicitly or implicitly affects an Associate's employment, unreasonably interferes with an Associate's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment." 2 (Id. at 8).
Winn-Dixie maintains a "step structure" pay scale setting starting pay ranges for certain employees. (Doc. 33-3 at 7, p. 55; Doc. 33-5 at 4, ¶ 11). Consistent with the 2009 starting-pay range for a part-time Meat Associate, Booker's starting pay was $6.88 per hour (Doc. 33-5 at 5, ¶ 12; Doc. 33-10). Effective July 24, 2009, Booker's wages were increased to $7.25 per hour. (Doc. 33-5 at 5, ¶ 13). On January 14, 2010, his wages were increased to $7.42 per hour, an amount within the 2010 starting-pay range for his position. (Id.; Doc. 33-11).
Market Manager Earnest Leprell Bodiford ("Bodiford"), a white male and supervisor the Store's Meat and Seafood Departments, was Booker's direct supervisor. (Doc. 33-1 at 6, p. 84; Doc. 33-15 at 2-3). As a part-time Meat Associate, Booker would clean the Meat Department's cutting boards, floor, cooler, and freezer, check the dates on meat, wrap meat, grind meat, unload meat deliveries, and assist in the Seafood Department as needed. (Doc 38-7 at 4, 6, pp. 75, 89-91). Booker typically worked from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and alternated between morning and evening shifts on weekends. (Id. at 7, pp. 94-95). Most evenings Booker would be the Meat Department's "closer," responsible for cleaning the department so that it would be ready for the next day and ensuring that the display cases looked neat and had no empty slots. (Id. at 6-7, pp. 92-93).
In addition to Meat Associates, the Meat Department was staffed by Meat Cutters whose primary responsibilities were to cut meat to company standards and customer specifications. (Doc. 33-15 at 3, ¶¶ 5, 8). To a lesser degree, Meat Cutters would also assist with organizing display cases and unloading and stocking meat. (Id., ¶ 8). Meat Cutters generally worked morning shifts and were usually gone by evening. (Id., ¶ 6; Doc. 33-1 at 6, p. 81). Meat Cutter is considered a promotion from Meat Associate, as a Meat Cutter's pay scale is higher andthe position offers more opportunities for advancement - for instance, an employee cannot become an Assistant Market Manager without first having worked as a Meat Cutter. (Doc. 38-6 at 22). Also, full-time Meat Cutters have the authority to direct the actions of Meat Associates and can order them to wrap meat, clean, and do "whatever needs to be done in the department." (Doc. 38-8 at 10-12).
Booker claims he did "way more" than what the job description of a part-time Meat Associate called for, mostly involving meat cutting. (Doc. 38-7 at 4-5, pp. 76-77; Doc. 38-15). He claims he cut "different types of meat," that he cut meat "constantly" and "every day," and that when the Meat Cutters left he would "have to basically be a full-time meat cutter." (Doc. 38-7 at 4-5, pp. 75, 78). Generally, the Meat Department's "closer" would be the only employee working in the department after 5:00 p.m. each day and was expected to cut meat if a customer asked from then until closing. (Doc. 38-10 at 6). Booker estimates that in an average five- or six-hour shift, he would spend at least three of those hours cutting meat. (Doc. 38-7 at 6, p. 89). Market Manager Bodiford and Assistant Meat Manager Chris Marshall ("Marshall") would ask Booker to cut meat during his shift, and Booker would cut "basically []the same types of meat" as Bodiford did. (Id. at 5, pp. 79-80)....
To continue reading
Request your trial