CHATTMAN v. TOHO TENAX AMERICA, INC.

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
• Writing for the Court: THOMAS A. VARLAN
• Citation: Chattman v. Toho Tenax America, Inc., 686 F. Supp.2d 754 (E.D. Tenn. 2010)
• Decision Date: 22 February 2010
• Docket Number: No. 3:08-CV-454.,3:08-CV-454.
• Parties: Everett CHATTMAN, Plaintiff, v. TOHO TENAX AMERICA, INC., Defendant.

686 F.Supp.2d 754

Everett CHATTMAN, Plaintiff, v. TOHO TENAX AMERICA, INC., Defendant.

No. 3:08-CV-454.

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Knoxville.

February 22, 2010.

Mark N. Foster, Law Office of Mark Foster, Rockwood, TN, for Plaintiff.

Teresa R. Bult, Katherine A. Summers, Constangy, Brooks & Smith, Nashville, TN, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THOMAS A. VARLAN, District Judge.

This civil action is before the Court on defendant Toho Tenax America, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment Doc. 19, in which defendant requests that summary judgment be granted in favor of defendant and plaintiff Everett Chattman's claims of employment discrimination on the basis of race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., the Tennessee Humans Rights Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4-21-101, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 be dismissed see Doc. 1-2; Doc. 33.¹ In the motion for summary judgment, defendant argues that plaintiff has not proved a prima facie claim for failure to promote on the basis of race, defendant has legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, and plaintiff cannot prove defendant's stated reasons are pretextual. Plaintiff has responded in opposition Doc. 26, stating that genuine issues of disputed material fact exist. Defendant has filed a reply Doc. 32, and a supplemental brief Doc. 40. The Court has carefully considered the pending motion for summary judgment Doc. 19 in light of the relevant law, and the parties' briefs, supporting materials, and exhibits Docs. 19, 20, 22, 28, 32, 40. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court will GRANT defendant's motion for summary judgment and DISMISS, with prejudice, plaintiff's claims against defendant.

I. RELEVANT FACTS

In September 2004, plaintiff, who is African American, began working as a shipping coordinator for defendant, a company that operates a production facility in Roane County, Tennessee (the "Roane County facility") Doc. 33, ¶ 2; Doc. 19-2, pp. 44, 50. On October 2, 2007, an incident occurred at the Roane County facility between plaintiff and another employee, Frank Johnson ("Johnson") Doc. 33, ¶¶ 5-22.² Following this incident, Johnson reported to Ben Chandler ("Chandler"), defendant's vice president of operations, that plaintiff had wrapped him in a "bear hug" and slammed him onto the ground, injuring his back Doc. 19-3, pp. 16-17. Defendant asserts that Johnson was taken to a hospital and an incident report for workers' compensation was completed Doc. 19-3, pp. 16, 21. The parties do not dispute that defendant's company safety rules prohibit horseplay and practical jokes on the manufacturing floor of the Roane County facility Doc. 19-2, pp. 42, 137, Ex. 2, "TohoTenax America, Inc., Employee Guidebook;" Doc. 19-4, p. 20; Doc. 19-5, pp. 16-19.

Defendant asserts that Chandler and Jeff Tullock ("Tullock"), defendant's human resources manager, who is Caucasian, performed the initial investigation into the incident Doc. 19-4, p. 10; Doc. 19-5, p. 17. As part of this initial investigation, defendant asserts that Chandler, Tullock, and Scotty Smith ("Smith"), defendant's shipping/planning manager and plaintiff's supervisor, met with two witnesses who gave slightly different accounts as to what had occurred between plaintiff and Johnson Doc. 19-3, pp. 22-27. Chandler, Tullock, and Smith then met with plaintiff. It is undisputed that at this meeting, plaintiff acknowledged wrapping his arms around Johnson and stated that he might have lifted him up. However, plaintiff could not verify whether he had "squeezed" Johnson Doc. 19-2, pp. 75-76, 93, 138; Doc. 19-3, p. 32.³ Chandler, who was responsible for making disciplinary decisions, regarded plaintiff's conduct as serious and initially recommended that plaintiff be terminated Doc. 19-3, pp. 30, 43. At the end of the meeting, plaintiff was told the incident was a serious matter which could lead to termination. Plaintiff was sent home on paid suspension Doc. 19-2, pp. 78, 107; Doc. 19-3, p. 38.

On October 2, 2007, before any decision was finalized regarding plaintiff's employment, defendant asserts that Marc Verbruggen ("Verbruggen"), defendant's president, called Jeff Lane ("Lane"), vice president of human resources at defendant's parent company, and asked Lane to come speak with witnesses to the incident Doc. 22, ¶¶ 8, 10; Doc. 19-5, pp. 24, 49. Chandler and Tullock testified that Verbruggen had taken them out of the investigation and, from that point on, they had nothing to do with any investigation related to the incident Doc. 19-3, pp. 59-60. Verbruggen also declares that in this second investigation, Verbruggen and Lane "conducted their own interviews of the witnesses, "started from scratch," and "wanted to make sure the second investigation was impartial and the information was seen through a new pair of eyes" Doc. 22, ¶ 12.

On October 4, 2007, defendant asserts that Verbruggen and Lane met with plaintiff and the witnesses Doc. 19-5, pp. 31-33. Both Verbruggen and Lane declare that the information given by the witnesses at the second meeting seemed different than that provided during the initial investigation Doc. 22, ¶ 14. Specifically, one witness could not remember exactly what happened during the incident, and the other witness stated that, since the incident, Johnson had tried to get other individuals to change their story Id., ¶ 14. Defendant asserts that Verbruggen and Lane met with plaintiff and plaintiff again stated that he had put his arms around Johnson but had not slammed him down Doc. 19-5 pp. 39-41.⁴

Defendant asserts that following these meetings, Lane recommended, and Verbruggen agreed, not to terminate plaintiff, but instead to give him a final written warning Doc. 19-5, p. 56; Doc. 22, ¶ 19. The parties do not dispute that plaintiff was told of this decision on October 9, 2007 Doc. 19-2, p. 118. Defendant's company policy is that a final written warning remains in effect for one year after it is issued Doc. 19-2, Ex. 9 "Associate Counseling Notice;" Doc. 19-4, p. 98. During that one year period, an employee with a final warning is not eligible for a promotion or a pay raise Doc. 19-3, p. 75. Thus, plaintiff's one year period began on October 9, 2007, the date plaintiff was told of the decision, and ended on October 9, 2008 Doc. 19-2, Ex. 9, "Associate Counseling Notice". Upon being informed of the final written warning decision, plaintiff returned to work and was paid for the time he had missed because of the suspension Id., pp. 107, 217. Defendant asserts that Johnson also received a final warning and that written documentation of these final warnings were provided to both plaintiff and Johnson on December 20, 2007 Doc. 19-2, p. 122, Ex. 9, "Associate Counseling Notice;" Doc. 19-3, p. 71; Doc. 19-4, p. 98; Doc. 22, ¶¶ 20, 23.

Plaintiff's account of the events following the incident differs. Plaintiff asserts that at the initial meeting with Chandler, Tullock, and Smith, he denied attacking Johnson and said what had happened between the two was just "horseplay" Doc. 33, ¶¶ 5-32. After being told of the suspension, plaintiff asserts that he objected to the decision to suspend him because he believed he had done nothing wrong as horseplay was common at the Roane County facility and because other employees, whom plaintiff asserts were all Caucasian, were never disciplined for similar behavior Doc. 28-1, ¶¶ 3-8. In regard to Verbruggen and Lane's second investigation, plaintiff asserts that even though Tullock knew that horseplay was common, Tullock did not share this information with Verbruggen and Lane Doc. 19-5, p. 15; Doc. 28-1, ¶¶ 19, 27. Plaintiff claims that Tullock refused to share this information because Tullock is racially prejudiced against plaintiff Doc. 28-1, ¶ 9. Plaintiff also asserts that Verbruggen and Lane failed to ask Tullock, Smith, or other individuals who engaged in horseplay whether it was tolerated, and, because of this failure to inquire, there was no realistic, meaningful investigation into horseplay at the Roane County facility. Thus, plaintiff asserts, the decision to give plaintiff a final warning was made under a false assumption, decided in isolation, and unreasonable discipline for conduct that was universally tolerated in others, namely—other Caucasian employees see Doc. 33.

Around the same time as the incident between plaintiff and Johnson, Smith, plaintiff's supervisor in the shipping department, was promoted to a new position Doc. 19-3, p. 62. As a result of this promotion, Chandler and Verbruggen contemplated restructuring the shipping department at the Roane County facility Id., pp. 62-64. As part of this restructuring, Smith recommended the creation of a shipping/receiving supervisor position to Chandler and recommended that plaintiff fill the position Id., p. 62. Despite the recommendation, Chandler asserts that he decided not to create the shipping/receiver supervisor position Id., p. 63. Plaintiff, on the other hand, claims that Chandler would have given plaintiff a promotion to the shipping/receiving supervisor position but for the final warning which prohibited plaintiff from being promoted for one year Doc. 28, p. 11. However, plaintiff does not dispute that a shipping/supervisor position was never created and no employee at the company has ever occupied such a position Doc. 19-2 p. 227; Doc. 19-3, p. 63.

On November 5, 2008, plaintiff filed his complaint, alleging that he was denied a promotion to the shipping/receiving supervisor position based on his race, and asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"), the Tennessee Humans Rights Act, Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 4-21-101, et seq. (the "THRA"), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("§ 1981"). Specifically, plaintiff alleges that Tullock acted out of racial animus when he denied Verbruggen and Lane access to relevant facts surrounding the incident between plaintiff and Johnson and...