Chambers v. Walt Disney World Co.
| Decision Date | 06 March 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 6:99-CV-1218ORL18DAB.,6:99-CV-1218ORL18DAB. |
| Citation | 132 F.Supp.2d 1356 |
| Parties | Victor CHAMBERS, Plaintiff, v. WALT DISNEY WORLD CO., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Victor Chambers, Orlando, FL, Pro se.
Charles Robinson Fawsett, Patrick M. Muldowney, Shutts & Bowen LLP, Orlando, FL, for Walt Disney World Company, defendants.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant Walt Disney World's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 30), to which Plaintiff Victor Chambers has responded in opposition (Doc. 39). Because no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Defendant intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff's distinguished criminal career includes twenty-five (25) arrests and seven convictions. (Doc. 33, Exhibit 4.) Specifically, Plaintiff's record reveals convictions for larceny (1970), impersonating an officer (1975), burglary of a residence by forced entry (1976), making a false report (1978), loitering and prowling (1980), burglary (1980), and shoplifting (1988). (Id., Arrests Nos. 1, 9, 14, 16, 19, 20, & 24.)1
In June 1990 and July 1991, Plaintiff submitted to Defendant employment applications for culinary positions. (Doc. 37, Exhibits 1 & 2.) Both applications asked, inter alia, whether Plaintiff had "ever been convicted of any crime other than a minor traffic violation." (Id. at 2) (emphasis added). Twice Plaintiff answered "No." (Id.) By signing his applications, Plaintiff certified his answers to be true and acknowledged "that falsification or misrepresentation of this or any other personnel record may result in [Plaintiff's] discharge." (Id.)
In July 1991, Defendant hired Plaintiff to work as a "prep chef." (Doc. 37 at 24.) Eventually Defendant accepted Plaintiff into its one-year management training program. (Id. at 26-7.) Plaintiff completed the program and applied for an open management position at Defendant's All Star Resort. (Id. at 28.)
All Star Chef Ken Hittman interviewed Plaintiff and, in March 1997, promoted him to "Restaurant Chef," a manager level position in the Food and Beverage Department. (Id. at 29-30.) The All Star Resort is composed of two sub-resorts, "Music" and "Sports." (Id.) Plaintiff was assigned to Sports, but, like all managers, worked interchangeably at either resort as needed. (Id.)
Hittman and Ken Bates, both white males, supervised Plaintiff. (Id. at 32.) In turn, Hittman and Bates reported to the Resort General Manager, Norm Noble, an African American male. (Id. at 33; Doc. 33 at 4.)
On 30 March 1998, Plaintiff filed a written complaint of discrimination with Defendant's Employee Relations Department. (Id., Exhibit 6.) Plaintiff informed Defendant that: 1) in May 1997, another manager, John Day, told Plaintiff he would not be accepted as part of the management team unless Plaintiff enrolled in specific courses;2 2) from July to December 1997, another manager, Vinny Schudde, locked Plaintiff out of the manager's office and repeatedly refused to take Plaintiff's telephone calls, electing instead to pick up and slam down the telephone; 3) on 14 March 1998, in response to a page, Plaintiff called the identified telephone number and "listened to comments made by a hate group;"3 and 4) on 24 March 1998, Bates transferred Plaintiff from Sports to Music. (Id.)
One week later, Plaintiff filed a second written complaint informing Defendant that: 1) in April 1997, Bates orally disciplined Plaintiff for disrupting the kitchen by publicly discussing promotion possibilities with a subordinate employee, Fred Rutherford, an African American male;4 2) in February 1998, a dispute arose between Plaintiff and two other managers regarding Plaintiff's method of completing "preference sheets," which Plaintiff ultimately won; 3) in January 1998, Bates directed Plaintiff to apologize to a front desk manager for improperly handling a guest dispute; 4) in April 1998, another manager, Marie Sarich, complained about Plaintiff's reorganization of the dishroom and told Plaintiff not to do "things without permission from the team;" 5) Bates promoted three employees to "full supervisor" without posting the openings as required by company policy; and 6) on 5 April 1998, "Art" said Plaintiff's treatment was due to the fact that Plaintiff had not "earned their respect." Plaintiff responded that "respect given is respect due, and the only thing I earn is a living." (Id., Exhibit 7.)
Employee Relations and Noble launched an extensive investigation into Plaintiff's complaint which included interviews with fourteen (14) employees. (Doc. 33 at 2.) From April to July 1998, Plaintiff had multiple meetings with Noble and Employee Relations. (Id.; Doc. 37 at 115.) Each time Noble asked how Plaintiff was being treated and requested information on new developments. (Doc. 37 at 116-17.)
After Plaintiff filed his complaints, Sarich began referring to Plaintiff as an "uncivilized wild man," and "Chief Wild Man Victor." (Id. at 39-40.) When Plaintiff asked Sarich, "Why do you keep calling me wild man?," Sarich replied, "You know how all of you are." (Id. at 40.) Later, in May or July 1998, Sarich confessed to Plaintiff her "problem getting along with people of color." (Id. at 41-2.)5
Additionally, another manager, Marie Cissle, posted a notice requesting subordinate employees to "please call the vice president in support of the managers about the complaint[.]" (Id. at 132.) Plaintiff informed Noble and Noble "called the morning manager and asked them which one put it up." (Id. at 133-34.) Cissle confessed and Noble removed the sign. (Id. at 134.)
In May or June 1998, subordinate employees organized a petition to have Plaintiff "removed from the All Star Resort because the managers there are good managers and [Plaintiff was] the one who should be leaving." (Id.) Further, subordinate employees planned (but failed) to stage a strike in opposition to Plaintiff's complaint, (Id. at 140-41), and Plaintiff arrived at work one morning to find several employees "all in tears, crying, complaining about [Plaintiff] filing a complaint on the managers." (Id. at 137.)
On 18 June 1998, Plaintiff met with Noble, Vice President Bill Ernest, and three representatives from Employee Relations, including the Director of Employee Relations, Steve Eisenhardt. (Id.) After Noble asked how Plaintiff was being treated, Eisenhardt allegedly stated that Plaintiff was "under investigation" for "filing too many complaints." (Id. at 117-19.)
During the investigation of Plaintiff's discrimination complaints, Noble "became aware that a non-supervisory employee who worked at the All Star Resort, Nancy Apple ... had come forward with information that [Plaintiff] had a criminal record prior to his employment by [Defendant]." (Doc. 33 at 2.) Apple investigated Plaintiff on her own initiative "because she was concerned based on her own observations of [Plaintiff's] behavior toward young guests and co-workers that she felt was inappropriate." (Id. at 3; Exhibit 3.)
Since 1997, Defendant has maintained a practice of having "a formal criminal background check performed on an employee where information is received about past criminal conduct or a past criminal record which may cast reasonable doubt on the fitness of that employee to work at [Defendant]." (Doc. 35 at 1.) "That practice was followed in the usual manner in the case of [Plaintiff] based on information furnished about him by a co-worker, Nancy Apple." (Id. at 2)
Defendant's background check revealed Plaintiff's numerous arrests and criminal convictions. (Doc. 33 at 3.) After reviewing Plaintiff's record, Noble inspected Plaintiff's employment applications and discovered that Plaintiff had falsified his applications. (Id.) Noble confronted Plaintiff and Plaintiff "admitted that he had at least one criminal conviction prior to filling out his applications." (Id.)
Defendant maintains an "established policy calling for termination of employment for false statements on employment applications." (Id.; Exhibit 7, "Employment Policy Manual.") Pursuant to that policy, Noble concluded that Plaintiff should be terminated. (Id. at 4.) Noble "alone was responsible for making the final decision to terminate [Plaintiff]." (Id.) According to Noble, Plaintiff's "termination had nothing to do with his complaints of race discrimination, nor did they have anything to do with his race." (Id.)
On 20 July 1998, Noble terminated Plaintiff for falsifying his employment application. (Doc. 37 at 120-21.) Upon request, Plaintiff wrote a statement confirming parts of his criminal record and explaining that he assumed the application question was limited to convictions within the last five years. (Id., Exhibit 8.)
Ultimately Defendant's investigation into Plaintiff's discrimination complaints "resulted in written reprimands and/or counseling being issued to a number of employees for inappropriate conduct, as well as the transfer of some of [Plaintiff's] co-workers to other facilities." (Doc. 33 at 2.) Disciplined employees included, among others, Bates, Schudde, Sarich, and Day. (Id., Exhibit 2.)
On 4 August 1998, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Orlando Human Relations Department. (Id., Exhibit 15.) After receiving a right to sue letter, Plaintiff filed this action under Title VII and § 1981 alleging claims for race discrimination and retaliation.
Federal summary judgment procedure pierces the pleadings to assess the proof to determine whether there is a genuine need for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Summary judgment is authorized if the record evidence reveals no genuine issue as to any material fact.6 See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). "Genuine"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. Pittsburgh Plate & Glass Co.
...113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407. S.Ct. 2742, 509 U.S. 502, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993). See also Chambers v. Walt Disney World, Co., 132 F.Supp.2d 1356 (M.D.Fla.2001) ("If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant employer must articulate a legit......
-
In re King
...allegations, in the absence of supporting evidence, are insufficient to withstand summary judgment.” Chambers v. Walt Disney World Co., 132 F.Supp.2d 1356, 1365 (M.D.Fla.2001) (citing Holifield, 115 F.3d at 1564 n. 6). In the Eleventh Circuit, sex-discrimination claims based on circumstanti......
-
Schultz v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
...case because, for this to be a direct evidence case, there must be "blatant discriminatory animus." Chambers v. Walt Disney World Co. , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1364 (M.D. Fla. 2001). That element is arguable in this case because there is evidence that the underlying motive for Dr. Shore's dec......
-
Bailey v. DAS North America, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-732-RAH-WC
...discrimination because they are not discriminatory against Bailey's own protected characteristics. See Chambers v. Walt Disney World Co. , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1364 (M.D. Fla. 2001). These statements would require the factfinder to infer that Wooten eventually terminated Bailey's employmen......