Chapman v. Progress Rail Servs. Corp.
| Decision Date | 19 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. C14-5680 RJB |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
| Parties | KELVIN CHAPMAN, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESS RAIL SERVICES CORPORATION, an Alabama For profit Corporation licensed to do business in the State of Washington, and CATERPILLAR INC., a Delaware For Profit Corporation licensed to do business in the State of Washington, Defendants. |
This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 23. The Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the motion and the remaining record. Oral argument has been requested, but would not be helpful in resolving the motion.
Plaintiff filed this employment discrimination case on June 14, 2014. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff alleges that employees of Defendant Progress Rail Services Corporation ("Progress") "repeatedly made offensive, derogatory and degrading remarks about the Plaintiff's race and sexual orientation," "leered" at him, touched him in an "unwanted and sexual manner," and acted in a way that created a "hostile work environment." Dkt. 1-2, at 2-3. Plaintiff alleges that he reported the behavior and was punished for doing so. Id., at 3. Plaintiff makes claims for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress/outrage ("outrage"), negligent infliction of emotional distress, and "negligent supervising and/or hiring." Id. Plaintiff also makes a claim for "discrimination as that term is defined by RCW 49.60.030 and RCW 49.44.090" the Washington Law Against Discrimination ("WLAD"). Id.
On August 27, 2014, this case was removed from Pierce County, Washington Superior Court based on diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. 1.
Defendants now file a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 23. Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss Defendant Caterpillar, Inc. Dkt. 24, at 2. Accordingly, no further analysis is necessary as to Caterpillar, Inc., and that defendant should be dismissed. For the reasons stated below, Defendant Progress' motion for summary judgment should be granted.
Plaintiff and Jayson Liess started working for Progress in 2009. Dkt. 25. In 2012, Plaintiff was a lead, and Mr. Liess was Plaintiff's supervisor. Id. Plaintiff is a heterosexual, black man, and Mr. Liess is a heterosexual, white man. Dkt. 24-1, at 23-24.
Plaintiff points to Mr. Liess' use of the term "boy" and seven incidents involving Mr. Liess as the basis of his claims. Dkt. 29.
As to Mr. Liess' use of the term "boy," Plaintiff testified that Mr. Liess used the term several times when he was correcting Plaintiff, or when he was angry. Dkt. 24-1, at 79. Plaintiff testified that he did not believe Mr. Liess was being "discriminatory toward [him]because of the color of [his] skin" when he used the term. Dkt. 24-1, at 76. Plaintiff testified that, "I stated that [Mr. Liess] is not a racial individual but that word, if it's used more than the name that's been given to you, can become very demeaning." Dkt. 24-1, at 81. Plaintiff also testified that Mr. Liess referred to other workers as "boy" including a Hispanic man and other white employees. Dkt. 24-1, at 77-78. Plaintiff acknowledged that he called Mr. Liess "boy" as well. Dkt. 24-1, at 78.
In his declaration, filed in opposition to Progress' motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff states:
It is well known to me and my fellow black men that the term "boy" is used to de-masculinize black men, and the use of the word is pervasive. . . A black man or woman would not fail to understand why a white supervisor's reference to a black man at his workplace as "boy" is loaded with racial content. I understand that a white man or woman may not. My supervisors are white people, and Mr. Liess is white. It is their ignorance that led them to fail to recognize the import of my complaint. . . Mr. Liess always used the term when he was angry with me. Mr. Liess always used the word with an inflection that implied dominance.
Plaintiff did not report Mr. Liess' use of this term until December of 2012. Dkt. 24-1, at 76-81. Yet, Plaintiff acknowledges that when he became an employee of Progress, he was trained in Progress' Code of Conduct (which describes harassment and the process by which it is reported) and the human resource policy on "Prohibited Harassment." Dkt. 24-1, at 18-22. He received and still receives annual training on these topics as well. Id.
(1) According to Plaintiff, around June 6, 2012, Plaintiff and several co-workers saw Mr. Liess approach another employee, Greg Siefert, who was down on one knee working. Dkt. 29.Plaintiff states that Mr. Liess put his leg over Mr. Siefert's shoulder and proceeded to thrust his hips toward Mr. Siefert. Dkt. 29.
Plaintiff testified that he and other co-workers laughed. Dkt. 24-1, at 42. Plaintiff testified he thought it was funny at the time. Dkt. 24-1, at 43. Plaintiff testified that he was able to continue to do his job afterward. Dkt. 24-1, at 43. In his declaration filed in opposition to Progress' motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff states, however, that he was "disgusted" by this behavior. Dkt. 29.
(2) On June 28, 2012, Plaintiff was down on one knee taking measurements of a railcar. Dkt. 24-1, at 32; 29, at 2 and 29-1, at 3. Mr. Liess walked up behind him, put his leg over Plaintiff's shoulder, and "started humping" Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff testified that he laughed (along with the other employees present), motioned with his arm for Mr. Liess to get off of him, and asked Mr. Liess if he was "crazy." Dkt. 24-1, at 34. Plaintiff also testified that he did not believe that his "humping" was because of his race or sex. Dkt. 24-1, at 39-40.
In his declaration filed in opposition to Progress' motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff states that he was "mortified, disgusted and angry." Dkt. 29, at 2. He states that he continued to do his work, but he was upset. Dkt. 29, at 2.
(3) Several months later, on November 7, 2012, Plaintiff testified that he and a few other employees were in the administrative offices. Dkt. 24-1, at 44-45. Plaintiff states that he and the other employees saw Mr. Liess "hump" a doorframe. Dkt. 24-1, at 45. Plaintiff states that Mr. Liess made some comments about sex. Dkt. 24-1, at 45. Plaintiff testified that he laughed because he thought it was funny and that, at that time, did not find the behavior offensive. Dkt. 24-1, at 46. Plaintiff was able to continue working afterward. Dkt. 24-1, at 47.
In his declaration filed in opposition to Progress' motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff states that he was "embarrassed and upset" by this behavior. Dkt. 29, at 2.
(4) On November 15, 2012, Plaintiff states that he was sitting and talking with Jeff Shipton, a production manager of the locomotive shop. Dkts. 24-1, at 53; and 29-1, at 5. Mr. Liess approached, put his left hand on Plaintiff's right thigh, and rubbed his thigh from the outside in. Dkt. 24-1, at 49. It lasted for about two seconds. Dkt. 24-1, at 49. Plaintiff moved Mr. Liess' hand away and asked him if he was "crazy." Dkt. 24-1, at 50. Plaintiff states that Mr. Liess said "no" but that he was "always looking" and that Plaintiff would never know when he might "walk up on" Plaintiff. Dkt. 24-1, at 50. Plaintiff testified that he did not believe that Mr. Liess engaged in this behavior because of Plaintiff's sex or race. Dkt. 24-1, at 50-51. Plaintiff testified that he never had the feeling that Mr. Liess was sexually attracted to him. Dkt. 24-1, at 51. Plaintiff was able to carry on and do his job after the incident. Dkt. 24-1, at 54.
In his declaration filed in opposition to Progress' motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff states that he was "angry and offended." Dkt. 29, at 3. Plaintiff stated that he felt that the touching was "sexual in nature." Dkt. 29, at 3.
(5) On November 17, 2012, Mr. Liess rubbed Plaintiff's shoulder "in a soft way back and forth," two or three times, and Plaintiff felt uncomfortable. Dkts. 24-1, at 56; 29-1, at 6. Plaintiff testified that Mr. Liess did not make any comments regarding sex or race when he committed this act. Dkt. 24-1, at 58. Plaintiff also testified that he had no information that Mr. Liess rubbed his shoulder in this matter because of Plaintiff's sex or race. Dkt. 24-1, at 57-58. Plaintiff further testified that he had seen Mr. Liess rub other people's shoulders in the past. Dkt. 24-1, at 59. Plaintiff states that he used a "shoulder shrug" to get him to stop. Dkt. 24-1, at 60.Plaintiff was able to continue to do his job. He states that he didn't report it because he "didn't consider it at the particular time an offensive act." Dkt. 24-1, at 62.
In his declaration filed in opposition to Progress' motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff states that he was "embarrassed and angered by this unwelcome and unwanted touching." Dkt. 29.
(6) On November 29, 2012, Plaintiff and another employee were in Mr. Liess' office. Dkts. 24-1, at 63 and 29-1, at 8. They saw Mr. Liess put his left leg up on his desk, "hump" his desk for a few seconds, and moan. Dkts. 24-1, at 63-65; and 29-1, at 8. Plaintiff testified that he did not have any information that Mr. Liess acted like this because of Plaintiff's sex or race. Dkt. 24-1, at 66. Plaintiff testified that he and the other employee laughed. Dkt. 24-1, at 67. Plaintiff testified that he thought that it was funny at the time. Dkt. 24-1, at 67. Plaintiff was able to continue working after this desk "humping" incident. Dkt. 24-1, at 68.
In his declaration filed in opposition to Progress' motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff states that he was "embarrassed and upset by this" desk "humping" incident. Dkt. 29, at 3.
(7) On December 5, 2012, Plaintiff was standing in the office talking with some co-workers. Dkts. 24-1, at 69, 29-1, at 8. He turned to set his hat and gloves on a table and Mr. Liess approached from behind. Dkts. 24-1, at 69; 29-1, at 8. As Plaintiff was turned, Mr. Liess...
To continue reading
Request your trial