Chandler v. CSC Applied Techs., LLC

• Decision Date: 12 July 2012
• Docket Number: No. 01–10–00667–CV.,01–10–00667–CV.
• Parties: Shedrick CHANDLER, Appellant v. CSC APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

376 S.W.3d 802

Shedrick CHANDLER, Appellant

v.CSC APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Appellee.

No. 01–10–00667–CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

July 12, 2012.

Criag R. Keener, Criag R. Kenner P.C., Houston, TX, for Appellant.

Joseph G. Galagaza, Jackson Lewis, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Appellee.

Panel consists of Justices KEYES, HIGLEY, and MASSENGALE.

OPINION

EVELYN V. KEYES, Justice.

Shedrick Chandler sued his former employer, CSC Applied Technologies, LLC (“CSC”), for race discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”). CSC moved for both traditional and no-evidence summary judgment and raised numerous objections to Chandler's summary judgment evidence. The trial court sustained seventy-four of CSC's objections and ultimately rendered summary judgment in favor of CSC. In three issues, Chandler contends that the trial court (1) erroneously rendered summary judgment on his race-discrimination claim because he raised genuine issues of material fact on each element challenged by CSC; (2) erroneously rendered summary judgment on his retaliation claim because he raised fact issues on each element challenged by CSC; and (3) erroneously sustained CSC's objections to his summary judgment evidence;

We affirm.

Background

Chandler, an African–American, began working for CSC, a company that “provides aerospace and aviation maintenance and modification service programs to several clients,” in 1994. Throughout his thirteen years of employment with CSC, Chandler worked as an electrician and avionics technician on several different types of aircraft, including temporary assignments to the WB–57 aircraft.

While Chandler was employed at CSC, two opportunities arose for employees to accompany the WB–57 aircraft to Afghanistan. Due to the danger of traveling to Afghanistan, and pursuant to its collective bargaining agreement, CSC management first asked the technicians specifically assigned to the WB–57 unit if they wished to go on the trip, and it then looked for qualified volunteers outside of the WB–57 unit if not enough personnel within the unit volunteered. Management then compiled a “trip list” of qualified personnel to consider before making the final selections.

Chandler, who had experience working on the WB–57, sought to be placed on the trip list as an alternate avionics technician. CSC management ultimately chose two Caucasian technicians, Bill Hughey and Jeff Geoff, as alternates for the 2007 Afghanistan trip.¹ Chandler believed that he was qualified to accompany the WB–57, and he complained on several occasions to various supervisory and management employees at CSC that he believed he should be included as an alternate on the trip list. Chandler admitted during his deposition that, although he complained about not being included on the trip list, he never informed anyone at CSC that he believed he was not included on the list because of his race.

On Friday, June 22, 2007, Stephen Armstrong, the supervisor of CSC's engine shop, was working as the acting supervisor of the avionics shop, which was Chandler's unit. He received a call from CSC Maintenance Control requesting that an avionics employee work overtime on Saturday, June 23, beginning at 7:30 a.m. as “engineering support” for the WB–57. Pursuant to CSC rules and strict union protocols, Armstrong consulted the avionics shop's “overtime list,” which must be consulted each time an overtime opportunity arises, and he ultimately called Chandler and asked him if he could work overtime on Saturday. Armstrong informed Chandler that he needed to be at CSC at 7:30 a.m. and that he would work an eight or ten hour shift. Chandler agreed to work the overtime.

On June 23, Chandler arrived at CSC and clocked in shortly after 5:00 a.m., which he believed was proper according to Armstrong's instructions. Due to a prior engagement, Chandler informed Jack McGee, the WB–57 crew leader, that he needed to leave at 1:00 p.m. He did not inform a supervisor that he was leaving at that time. Chandler did not believe that this qualified as “leaving early” because, since he had arrived at 5:00 a.m., he had worked a full eight-hour shift. According to Chandler, during the course of his work on the WB–57 that Saturday, David Lanmon, the supervisor of the WB–57 program, handed him four engineering work orders and told him, “Be prepared to work the weekend, and do not work over 12 hours a day.” Chandler determined that the work orders were “not a one-day project,” so he continued to work overtime on the WB–57 until he finished the work orders, coordinating with the regular membersof the WB–57 crew regarding when they would arrive at work each day. On Monday, June 25, Lanmon specifically asked Chandler how much time he needed to finish the work orders. Chandler estimated that he would be finished by Tuesday, June 26, at the latest, and he indeed finished working on the WB–57 on that date before returning to his usual job in the avionics shop.

That week, Jackie Lankford, the Support Shops Manager, contacted Robert Payne, the Program Manager of CSC's NASA Aviation Services, regarding concerns that Chandler had worked unauthorized overtime. On June 30, Payne held an “investigatory meeting” with Chandler, along with Richard Philips, the Chief Union Steward, Patrick Bousley, Director of Maintenance, Lankford, Heidi Ruby, Division Contract Administration Manager, and Jose O'Campo, Chandler's supervisor. According to Chandler, Chandler informed Payne that Armstrong told him to arrive at 5:00 a.m. on Saturday; that he then called David Wyckoff, an avionics technician on the WB–57, who told him that he would arrive at 5:30 a.m. on Saturday; and that Lanmon told him to “be prepared to work the weekend” in order to finish the engineering work orders he had given Chandler. Chandler stated that no one told him that he was not supposed to work on the WB–57 on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday.

After this meeting, Payne spoke to Lanmon and received written statements from Armstrong, Lankford, and Wyckoff. Lanmon and Armstrong denied authorizing Chandler to work overtime on the WB–57 for any day other than Saturday, June 23. Wyckoff stated that he did not work that weekend, and he denied speaking with Chandler regarding what time Chandler should arrive on Saturday.

After concluding the investigation, Payne and Ruby made the decision to terminate Chandler's employment with CSC on August 9, 2007, due to his actions involving the unauthorized overtime. Chandler was terminated for violating two of CSC's workplace rules, both of which require termination on the first offense: (1) “Falsification of personnel or other Company or contract related records,” and (2) “Deliberate falsification of facts to management or similar form of dishonesty.”

After obtaining a “Notice of Right to File a Civil Action” from the Texas Workforce Commission, Chandler filed suit against CSC on September 26, 2008, and asserted claims of race discrimination and retaliation. Specifically, Chandler alleged that CSC discriminated against him based on his race when it (1) refused to include him on the Afghanistan trip list and (2) terminated his employment. Chandler alleged that CSC retaliated against him for complaining to management about not being included on the Afghanistan trip list by terminating his employment.

CSC moved for both traditional and no-evidence summary judgment. In its no-evidence motion regarding Chandler's race discrimination claims, CSC contended that Chandler could present no evidence that (1) similarly situated non-protected class members were treated differently, (2) CSC's articulated reasons for its employment decisions were false, or (3) racial discrimination was the real reason CSC made these particular employment decisions. Regarding Chandler's retaliation claim, CSC contended that Chandler could present no evidence that (1) he engaged in a protected activity, (2) a causal link existed between the alleged protected activity and the adverse action of Chandler's termination, (3) he would not have been terminated but for his alleged complaints of discrimination, and (4) CSC's articulated reason for its actions was a pretext for unlawful retaliation.

In its traditional summary judgment motion, CSC asserted that it did not include Chandler on the Afghanistan trip list because “Chandler did not have the necessary knowledge and skills for the tasks and challenges he could potentially face on the trip, including how to fix certain problems, such as the auto pilot and radar, on the WB–57 aircraft.” CSC argued that Chandler could only speculate regarding the qualifications of the individuals chosen as alternates on the trip list, and he “has no firsthand knowledge of the breadth of their experience.”

CSC also asserted that it terminated Chandler based on his actions involving the unauthorized overtime and his two workplace rule violations, both of which required termination on the first offense. CSC argued that it “had a good faith belief that Mr. Chandler worked unauthorized overtime and was untruthful in his attempt to provide justification for the hours he worked during the week of June 23, 2007.” CSC further argued that its reasons for terminating Chandler were “honest and legitimate,” based on Chandler's inconsistent and contradictory excuses for his actions and the statements from Armstrong, Lanmon, Lankford, and Wyckoff, all of which contradicted Chandler's explanation of events. CSC also contended that Chandler could not establish that a fact issue existed regarding whether CSC unlawfully terminated Chandler based on his race because he could not point to any non-protected class members who engaged in the same rule violations and were not terminated.

Regarding Chandler's retaliation claim, CSC argued that Chandler could not establish that he engaged in a protected activity, because although he testified in his deposition that he complained to...