Caudill v. Ccbcc, Inc.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
• Writing for the Court: John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
• Citation: Caudill v. Ccbcc, Inc., 651 F.Supp.2d 499 (S.D. W.Va. 2009)
• Decision Date: 17 August 2009
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2:08-1202.
• Parties: Katrina Lynn CAUDILL, Plaintiff, v. CCBCC, INC., a corporation, Defendant.

651 F.Supp.2d 499

Katrina Lynn CAUDILL, Plaintiff, v. CCBCC, INC., a corporation, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:08-1202.

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, at Charleston.

August 17, 2009.

Donald C. Wandling, Douglas Witten, Robert B. Kuenzel, Avis Witten & Wandling, Logan, WV, for Plaintiff.

Alyesha P. Asghar, Eric W. Iskra, Spilman Thomas & Battle, Charleston, WV, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN T. COPENHAVER, JR., District Judge.

Pending is the motion for summary judgment of the defendant, CCBCC, Inc. ("CCBCC"), filed on June 15, 2009.¹ For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted.

I.

A bottler and distributor of Coca Cola products, CCBCC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina. (Compl. ¶ 1; Answer ¶ 1; Not. of Removal ¶ 7). In September of 2001, CCBCC hired the plaintiff, Katrina Caudill, as a "truck checker" at its Logan, West Virginia facility. (Caudill Dep. at 28-29, Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 2). Plaintiff, who is a Logan, West Virginia resident, worked as a truck checker until January of 2002 when she was promoted to the position of warehouse manager. (Compl. ¶ 2; Caudill Dep. at 30, Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 2).² As warehouse manager, plaintiff was the immediate supervisor of three warehouse employees. (Id. at 31). While the employees she supervised were part of a union, and governed by a union contract, as a warehouse manager she was not. (Id. at 32). In addition to not being part of the union, plaintiff was not party to an employment contract with CCBCC. (Id. at 38).

CCBCC's "Employment Guide" contains, what the parties refer to as, an "anti-nepotism" policy. Under the heading "Employment of Relatives," the Employment Guide provides:

CCBCC does not believe it is in the best interest of the Company to employ relatives of employees of the Company. CCBCC will avoid hiring "close relatives." "Close Relatives" are defined as the employee's:

  Spouse         Legal Guardian
                  Children       Mother-in-law
                  Father         Father-in-law
                  Mother         Sister-in-law
                  Sister         Brother-in-law
                  Brother        Daughter-in-law
                  Cousin         Son-in-law
                  Stepson        Nephew
                  Step-daughter  Niece
                  Step-Father    Uncle
                  Step-Mother    Aunt
                  Step-Sister    Grandparents
                  Stepbrother    Grandchildren
                

A. Promotion into Supervision—In situations where employees are promoted into supervision where they have a close relative working, (i.e. grandfathered acquisitions) the relative will be transferred within a reasonable period of time

B. Exceptions to this policy include:

1. Hiring close relatives for temporary work assignments (e.g., summer employment)

2. Weekend merchandisers

(CCBCC Employment Guide at 87-88, Reply to Resp. to Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 1).³

When plaintiff was hired by CCBCC, she received a copy of the Employment Guide, and was aware of the employment of relatives policy set forth therein. (Caudill Dep. at 37-42, Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 2).

CCBCC has submitted the affidavit of Lynn Leary, the company's employee relations manager since January 1, 2000. (Leary Aff. ¶ 1, Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 4). As employee relations manager, Ms. Leary is responsible for overseeing employee and labor relations for all CCBCC facilities, including its facilities in Logan, West Virginia, and for administration of the personnel policies set forth in the Employment Guide. (Id. ¶ 2). Ms. Leary's affidavit states that the employment of relatives policy contained in the Employment Guide "disallows the employment of close relatives, except in the role of weekend merchandisers who are exempt from the application of the policy. In practice, close relatives are forbidden from working together where the appearance of impropriety or a conflict of interest might occur." (Id. ¶¶ 4-5). According to Ms. Leary, the statement in the Employment Guide that "`CCBCC does not believe it is in the best interest of the Company to employ relatives of employees or directors of the Company,' means that the business necessity behind CCBCC's anti nepotism policy is to avoid the appearance of impropriety within the line of supervision and the potential of a conflict of interest." (Id. ¶ 10).⁴ Because the purpose of the policy is to "eliminate favoritism and to remove the opportunity for favoritism . . . [i]n its practical application, the Employment of Relatives policy effectively disallows the supervision of one relative by the other." (Id. ¶¶ 6-7). Thus, according to Ms. Leary, "there are multiple examples of family members who work within the same department and/or the same CCBCC branch without violating the policy because neither relative is entrusted with the supervision of the other." (Id. ¶ 8).

In 2006 or 2007, plaintiff's daughter Hollie Cox began dating Roy Evans. (Caudill Dep. at 63, Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 2). Like the plaintiff, Mr. Evans worked for CCBCC, but was a member of the Chauffers, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 175. (Id. at 62). As a union member, Mr. Evan's employment with CCBCC was subject to the terms of a contract between the union and CCBCC. (Id. at 33; CCBCC/Local No. 175 Agreement, Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 6). When Ms. Cox and Mr. Evans first started dating, plaintiff was required to "check his [Mr. Evan's] trucks" and "verify Mr. Evan's deposits." (Caudill Dep. at 96, Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 2).⁵ Once Mr. Evans and Ms. Cox began living together, however, Rick Thacker, the sales manager for the CCBCC Logan facility and plaintiff's superior, had another supervisor verify Mr. Evan's deposits in order to avoid allegations that the plaintiff was favoring her daughter's boyfriend. (Id. at 96-97).

In March of 2008, the plaintiff discovered that Mr. Evans and Ms. Cox were considering getting married, (Id. at 59), and at some point soon thereafter plaintiff learned that the couple had set July 1, 2008 as the date for their marriage. (Id.) Because she had been told that if Mr. Evans and Ms. Cox were to marry, her employment with CCBCC would be in jeopardy, plaintiff informed Mr. Thacker of the impending marriage out of concern for her job. (Id. at 60-61).⁶

At the time the plaintiff first spoke with Mr. Thacker regarding her daughter's intention to marry Mr. Evans, Mr. Evans was on workers compensation leave. (Id. at 61-62). As a member of the union, upon returning to work Mr. Evans had a right under the union contract to "bid into" a position in the warehouse. (Id. at 62). In the event Mr. Evans exercised this right, he would be under the supervision of the plaintiff. (Id.). Plaintiff testified that:

Q. You were—then you were discussing this with Rick [Thacker] and others in the facility, and you were being told that if Mr. Evans comes back to the warehouse, you would lose your job?

A. Yes.

Q. Per the policy?

A. Yes.

(Id. at 85). Despite knowing that plaintiff's job would be in jeopardy if he chose to come back to work in the warehouse, and though given the option to work in another position, upon returning to work Mr. Evans nevertheless chose to work in the warehouse. (Id. at 64-71). On April 14, 2008, following Mr. Evans' return to work, the plaintiff discovered that her daughter and Mr. Evans had changed their plans and intended to marry on the following day. (Id. at 59). On April 15, 2008, Mr. Evans and Ms. Cox were married, and plaintiff became the supervisor of her now son-in-law. (Id.)

Following the marriage, plaintiff had a number of conversations with Mr. Thacker regarding the effect the marriage would have on her employment with CCBCC. (Id. at 73). And according to the plaintiff, Mr. Thacker "did everything in his power to keep my job." (Id.). Mr. Thacker told the plaintiff that he spoke with CCBCC auditors and human resources, and with "Doug Harper and Tom Smith." (Id.)⁷

After these discussions, Mr. Smith told the plaintiff that, while she would be allowed to remain in her position for sixty days, after the sixty days she could no longer be employed as a warehouse manager at the CCBCC Logan facility given that she now supervised her son-in-law. (Id.)

According to the affidavit of Mr. Thacker, "[i]n an effort to preserve Katrina Caudill's employment after learning about the marriage of her daughter to her subordinate, CCBCC offered Ms. Caudill an opportunity to transfer to the CCBCC facility located in St. Albans, West Virginia." (Thacker Aff. ¶ 5). Had plaintiff accepted the offer, she would have been transferred "to another Warehouse Supervisor position at the same pay grade." (Id. ¶ 6). While this transfer was to be temporary, "[b]y accepting the temporary transfer . . . Ms. Caudill would no longer be in a direct line of supervision over her son-in-law Roy `Bo' Evans." (Id. ¶ 7). Thus, according to Mr. Thacker, the proposed transfer "would have been a way for all parties involved to wait and see what happened without causing Ms. Caudill to lose her job." (Id. ¶¶ 6 and 8). Plaintiff testified that while she discussed the possibility of transferring to St. Albans on a temporary basis with Mr. Smith, the warehouse manager working in St. Albans told her that he would not transfer to Logan and therefore the transfer never occurred. (Caudill Dep. at 74-76, Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 2). Plaintiff also testified that even if the St. Albans warehouse manager had been willing to transfer to Logan, as counsel for CCBCC represented was the case, she could not have accepted the transfer because her car was broken down and she would not have been able to travel to St. Albans. (Id. at 76-79).

On July 18, 2008, CCBCC discharged the plaintiff. (Compl. ¶ 4; Answer ¶ 4).⁸ On her last day of work, July 17, 2008, the plaintiff filled out a form titled "Exit Interview." (7/17/08 Exit Interview Form, Reply to Resp. to Mot Summ. J., Ex. 9; Caudill Dep. at 88, Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 2). On the form, plaintiff checked boxes evidencing whether she was "very satisfied," "satisfied," "dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied" with her employment experience at CCBCC. As to...