Chambliss v. Entergy Corp.
| Docket Number | Civil Action 22-2488 |
| Decision Date | 27 October 2023 |
| Parties | JESSIE CHAMBLISS v. ENTERGY CORPORATION |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
ORDER AND REASONS
Before me is Defendant Entergy (“Entergy”) Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) seeking summary judgment on Plaintiff Jessie Chambliss' claims of race discrimination, harassment and retaliation under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff timely filed an Opposition Memorandum (ECF No. 41) and Entergy filed Reply Memorandum (ECF No. 44). No party requested oral argument in accordance with Local Rule 78.1, and the court agrees that oral argument is unnecessary.
Having considered the record, the argument of counsel, and the applicable law, Entergy's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED for the reasons stated herein.
On February 14, 2020, Entergy offered plaintiff employment as a Senior Material Operator at its Waterford III nuclear plant contingent upon his obtaining and maintaining unescorted access authorization (“UAA”) to the nuclear plant. ECF No. 28-11 & No. 41-1 (together “Uncontested Facts”) ¶¶ 1, 3. The offer letter expressly stated that employment was conditioned upon “[o]btaining and maintaining authorization for unescorted access to the nuclear plant site ....” ECF No. 28-2 at 43. To comply with the with Nuclear Regulatory Commission's guidance and other federal regulations, Entergy's Waterford III nuclear plant's UAA program is designed to provide high assurance that individuals subject to Entergy's Access Authorization and Fitness for Duty programs are trustworthy and reliable and that they do not constitute an unreasonable threat to public health and safety or security, including the potential to commit radiological sabotage. ECF No. 28-1 at 3 n.2.
The Warehouse Supervisor serves as the immediate supervisor for the Senior Material Operator, but, because that Warehouse Supervisor quit around the same time Plaintiff became employed, two other managers alternated in that role. Uncontested Facts ¶¶ 4-7. Tracy Askew (African American) and Kristopher Patin (presumably Caucasian) were two managers who served in that role when Chambliss was hired. ECF No. 28-4 ¶¶ 3-5; No. 28-3 ¶ 4. Entergy contends that, within a few weeks of Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff reported that he was not receiving adequate training and his co-workers began to complain about his performance. Uncontested Facts ¶¶ 8-11.[1]
In late 2020, Melissa Hardin began working as Warehouse Supervisor and was tasked with managing a planned outage at Waterford III in late 2020. Uncontested Facts ¶¶ 13-15. Hardin met with Chambliss in September 2020 to go over expectations, after which Chambliss told Hardin he suffered a panic attack due to stress of having to pass tests he felt unprepared to take (particularly the forklift test) and he felt he was being singled out and discriminated against by Askew pressuring him to take and pass the tests. Id. ¶¶ 16-20; see also ECF No. 28-3 at 7; but see 28-2 at 28-29 (). Chambliss admitted he was not the only employee tested, and he ultimately passed both his forklift and hazmat tests. ECF No. 28-2 at 25-26; Uncontested Facts ¶ 21.
On December 30, 2020, Entergy hired Terrence James (African American) as the Warehouse Supervisor, and James became Plaintiff's immediate supervisor. Id. ¶¶ 23-24; see also ECF No. 28-5 ¶¶ 2-4. On January 5, 2021, James reported that Chambliss told him and another manager that he had taken prescription medication and was high, so James sent Plaintiff home for the day and requested that Site Access review Plaintiff's UAA credentials for continued unrestricted access to the nuclear power plant. ECF No. 28-11 ¶¶ 25-27. Although Chambliss' Response to Entergy's Statement of Uncontested Facts disputes that he told James that he was high from prescription medication,[2] Plaintiff again fails to attach or cite any evidence to create a genuine dispute of that asserted fact. Further, Chambliss does not deny that James sent him home or requested review of his UAA credentials. Uncontested Facts ¶¶ 26-27.
A few weeks later, on February 8, 2021, Entergy asserts that one of Chambliss' co-workers reported that Chambliss' speech was slurred and he seemed sluggish, after which James sought to discuss Entergy's fitness for duty requirements with Plaintiff and accompanied him to Site Access to undergo a fitness for duty assessment. ECF No. 28-11 ¶¶ 28-33. Again, Chambliss' Response to Entergy's Uncontested Facts Statement disputes that assertion as hearsay with no contrary evidence offered, but admits that James asked Chambliss to discuss Entergy's fitness for duty requirements. ECF No. 41-1 ¶¶ 28, 29. Likewise, Chambliss disputes Entergy's description of his behavior (e.g., making loud statements about his coworkers while walking to Site Access),[3]but offers no evidence to contradict the statements of James (ECF No. 28-5 ¶¶ 8-13, at 2), Robin (id. at 7), Askew (id. at 8), Gongora (id. at 9-10), Patin (id. at 11-12), or Rabalais (id. at 13).
The parties agree that, on that same day (February 8, 2021), (a) Chambliss made an ethics line complaint to report that Askew and James discriminated against him based on his race and that another employee (Patin) was a racist, and (b) another employee Gongora (one of Chambliss' co-workers) made an ethics line complaint against Chambliss. Uncontested Facts ¶¶ 35-37, ¶¶ 3840; see also ECF No. 28-6 at 3-6; ECF No. 28-10. After Entergy's Human Resources advisor Gillian Taylor investigated the complaints, she found no evidence that Askew, James or any other employee discriminated against Chambliss. Uncontested Facts ¶ 41; Declaration of Gillian Taylor, ECF No. 28-6 ¶¶ 3-4. Taylor's final report indicates that, during the investigation, Chambliss asked to rescind his request for an investigation. ECF No. 28-6 at 9. On February 23, 2021, Entergy issued a Last Chance Written Warning to Chambliss. Uncontested Facts ¶ 44.
About two weeks later, on March 3, 2021, Chambliss reported to work but advised James that he was unable to work due because of pain, later attributed to his back. The next day, he did not report to work and initially requested FMLA leave but later opted to take a week of vacation. Chambliss visited his doctor and received prescriptions for various medications. Uncontested Facts ¶¶ 45-49. On March 18, 2021, Chambliss was allegedly found asleep at his desk after he missed the morning meeting. Although Chambliss denies missing the morning meeting and being found asleep at his desk, he admits that James instructed him to report to Site Access for a fitness for duty assessment on that date and, because James was not available to take him, Patin accompanied Chambliss to Site Access for a drug test and fatigue assessment. Id. ¶¶ 50-54. On the way, Chambliss asked Patin if he had been transferred to Waterford III after he called an employee the n---- word, which he alleges Patin admitted. Id. ¶ 55; see also ECF No. 28-2 at 3334. Chambliss states that Patin once called him “boy.” Uncontested Facts ¶ 56.
Chambliss' March 28, 2021, drug test was negative but, based on behavioral observations, Entergy's Medical Review Officer restricted Chambliss from operating any equipment pending a sleep study, which resulted in Entergy rescinding Chambliss' UAA pending his ability to demonstrate fitness for duty. Id. ¶¶ 57-59. The sleep study revealed Chambliss suffers from moderate obstructive sleep apnea, and his doctor reported to Entergy that he was unable to perform his job functions as a result of sleep apnea. Id. ¶¶ 60-61. A few months later, on October 8, 2021, Chambliss informed Entergy that his doctor released him to return to work, but Entergy's Medical Review Officer did not clear Chambliss' return to work because his doctor's note did not demonstrate compliance with Entergy's standards. Entergy asserts that, based on Department of Transportation regulations, its standards required that, to regain his UAA, Chambliss was required to show that, for 70% of the month, he was using the CPAP machine for at least four hours per day, and his doctor's documentation did not reflect sufficient use of the CPAP. Id. ¶¶ 62-64.
Entergy's Human Resources representative met with Chambliss on October 29, 2021 to explain that he was responsible for establishing his fitness for duty and complying with the requirements for UAA site access, told him that he had 30 days from that date to demonstrate compliance, and sent him two emails during November to remind him that he needed to demonstrate compliance. Id. ¶¶ 66-69. Chambliss did not provide the necessary information to show that he was in compliance with Entergy's standards requiring that he demonstrate use of the CPAP for at least four hours a day for 70% of the month as necessary to regain his UAA (id. ¶ 69), which Chambliss admitted in his deposition. ECF No. 28-2 at 37 (); at 41 ().
In January 2022, Entergy notified Chambliss that he was being terminated because he was not qualified for his position due to his inability to regain his UAA. Id. ¶¶ 70, 71.
Entergy seeks summary judgment dismissing (1) Plaintiff's Title VII claims as time-barred because he filed suit more than 90 days after the EEOC's May 3, 2022 determination letter (2) the § 1981 claim on the basis that he has not established severe or pervasive harassment based on race; (3) both the Title VII and § 1981 claims because Chambliss cannot establish a...
To continue reading
Request your trial