Davidson v. FMC Techs., Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-cv-00756 |
| Parties | CRAIG DAVIDSON, Plaintiff, v. FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
This matter was referred by United States District Judge Vanessa Gilmore, for full pre-trial management, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). (Docket Entry #8). In this case, Plaintiff Craig Davidson ("Plaintiff," "Davidson") brings claims against his former employer, Defendant FMC Technologies, Inc. ("Defendant," "FMC," "the company") under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), under the Texas Labor Code, and under Texas common law. Plaintiff alleges that FMC discriminated against him, on the basis of his race, and created a hostile work environment. Plaintiff further alleges that FMC "retaliated" against him when he filed a grievance complaining that his supervisor had been speaking negatively about him and gave preferential treatment to his "favorite" employee. Pending before the court is a motion for summary judgment that was filed by Defendant. (FMC Technologies, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment ["Motion"], Docket Entry #20). Plaintiff has responded in opposition to the motion, and Defendant has replied. (Plaintiff Davidson's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment ["Response"], Docket Entry #21; FMC Technologies, Inc.'s Reply in Support of Its Motion for Complete Summary Judgment ["Reply"], Docket Entry #22). Having reviewed the pleadings, the evidence, and the applicable law, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment be GRANTED.
Defendant FMC Technologies, Inc. manufactures sophisticated oil and gas production equipment and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. (Motion at 3). On February 27, 2012, Plaintiff Craig Davidson, a 42 year old Caucasian male, was hired by FMC, as an "Assembly Technician"1 in Houston, Texas. (Id.; Motion, Ex. 3 ["Davidson Offer Letter"] at 2; Response, Ex. 4 ["Davidson Affidavit"] at 1). He was originally assigned to work at the Hardy Facility, and this action arises from Davidson's complaints that he was discriminated against, because of his race,2 while employed at that facility. (Motion at 3; Motion, Ex. 28 ["Davidson Deposition"] 104:18; Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ["First Amended Complaint"] at 3, Docket Entry #15; Response at 1-4).
In support of his claims, he contends that he was subjected to "outrageous and offensive verbal abuse," and other "hazardous and unhealthy working conditions[.]" (First Amended Complaint at 2-3). While Davidson's precise complaints are difficult to glean, he appears to allege that FMC "retaliated" against him for filing a grievance against his supervisor, Brandon Escobedo. (See id. at 3; Motion, Ex. 16 at 8; Motion, Ex. 17 at 2). Davidson also alleges that the termination of his employment with FMC was a result of this discrimination, as well as in retaliation for his complaints about Escobedo. (First Amended Complaint at 3). In addition, Plaintiff raises commonlaw claims for invasion of privacy, negligence, defamation, and tortious interference with contractual and business relationships. (Id. at 2-4). Davidson's invasion of privacy claim stems from the purported circulation of a "confidential journal describing his frustration[] with [] co-workers[.]" (Response at 5, First Amended Complaint at 2, 3). His negligence claim arises from injuries that he allegedly suffered as a result of Defendant's failure "to implement and maintain proper hearing and visual protection devices[.]" (First Amended Complaint at 4). Next, Davidson complains that Defendant "defamed" him by "uttering [] false [] statements about his personal [] and professional reputation[.]" (Id. at 3). Finally, Plaintiff contends that FMC "tortiously interfered with [his] contractual and business relationships [.]" (Id. at 4).
The record shows that, from 2012 to 2014, Plaintiff was working at the Hardy Facility, and that he reported directly to Brandon Escobedo ["Escobedo"]. (Motion at 3; Davidson Offer Letter at 2; Davidson Deposition at 104:18; Motion, Ex. 16 at 4; Response, Ex. 5 ["Performance & Development Discussion 2014"] at 4). On January 15, 2013, he was evaluated in a "Performance & Development Discussion,"["PDD"] to determine whether he had "accomplish[ed] [certain] performance objectives[, and maintained his] major responsibilities [] during the [specified] appraisal period." (Motion, Ex. 16 at 2). In that PDD, Davidson was assessed in the categories of "Safety," "Quality," "Cost," "Delivery," and "Improved Work Force." He received commendations in each of those areas. (Id. at 2-3). In fact, Davidson was recognized for his reliability, initiative, "solutions-oriented" mindset, "accountability for project deliverables," and his ability to motivate and lead his co-workers. (Id. at 3). It was also noted that Plaintiff "promote[d] a positive work environment[,]" by training other technicians and by "being a constant resource for technicians [with] questions." (Id. at 3). However, the PDD also recommended that Davidson "gain a betterunderstanding of [how his] personality [] interact[s]" with "his co-workers['] personalities[.]" (Id. at 4).
Five months after that PDD, an FMC security guard found a "'book in a [company] bathroom stall [apparently] talking mess about people in the shop[.]'" (Motion at 4; Motion, Ex. 5 at 3). The guard gave the journal to Daniel Maganas ["Maganas"], an equipment preservation technician. (Motion, Ex. 5 at 2). Maganas accepted the journal, "glanced at it," but reports that he did not read it. (Id.). He admits, however, that he did review enough of the notebook to realize that it belonged to Davidson. Maganas gave the journal to another technician, who, in turn, left it for Davidson to pick up when he arrived at work the following day. (Id. at 3). Maganas states that, the next day, he heard that two other employees had seen the journal before it was ultimately given to the company's human resource department. (Id.).
On May 13, 2013, the human resource department notified Davidson that it had received a complaint that he had engaged in inappropriate behavior, and that an investigation would ensue. (Motion, Ex. 9 at 2). In a letter, dated May 16, 2013, Delicia Perdue ["Perdue"], an employee relations specialist, informed Plaintiff of the results of that investigation. (See id.). Perdue reported that a claim that Davidson "often refer[s] to [his co-workers] as 'idiot[s],' [] or 'dumb'" had been substantiated, and that such behavior is "disrespectful and inappropriate." (Id.). She also stated that an allegation that Plaintiff had "mentioned planting a flash grenade [] on company property" had been confirmed, and that "threatening the security" of company employees and company property is a "violation of company policy." (Id.). Perdue warned Davidson that additional displays of inappropriate behavior, or violations of company policy, would result in further disciplinary action, "up to and including termination." (Id.).
On December 18, 2013, Davidson applied for the position of Production Control Planner II at FMC. (Motion at 4; Davidson Deposition at 143: 11-15). Lillian DeLeon ["DeLeon"], Production Planning Supervisor, interviewed Plaintiff about that job opening. (Motion, Ex. 10 ["Ethics Point Case 693"] at 5). During the interview, DeLeon apparently asked Davidson about a rumor that he had criticized his supervisor. (Motion, Ex. 11 ["DeLeon Transcript"] 2:21-25, 3:1-6). It was reported that Plaintiff had earlier complained to Jeffrey Mathews ["Mathews"], the company's Director of Service, that he thought that Brandon Escobedo was a bad supervisor. (Id.). Davidson denied making such a statement, and later, sent an email to Mathews, repeating that he had never commented on Escobedo's abilities. (Ethics Point Case 693 at 5; Motion, Ex. 12 ["Mathews Emails"] at 2; DeLeon Transcript at 2:21-22). On January 7, 2014, Davidson again met with DeLeon in an effort to dispel the rumor that she had referenced during his job interview. (Ethics Point Case 693 at 5; DeLeon Transcript at 3:3, 5:8-9). Plaintiff told her that he felt that it would be "unfair" if the rumor was to be considered in the application process. (DeLeon Transcript at 3:17-19). DeLeon assured Davidson that the rumor was not the determining factor in her decision to award the position to another candidate. (Id. at 3:20-21). Davidson conceded that he understood the decision to hire "someone with 20 years" of experience instead of him. (Id. at 3:20-4:1). DeLeon encouraged Davidson to speak with Escobedo, directly, to see if he knew who had started the rumor, and to attempt to "mend [the] relationship." (Id. at 6:23-7:3).
After the meeting with DeLeon, Plaintiff did speak with Escobedo, who told him that he "had no idea" how the rumor had originated. (Motion, Ex. 13 ("Escobedo Transcript") at 2:23). Escobedo did comment that he had been speaking with other supervisors about the possibility of transferring Plaintiff to another department, but that he wanted to ensure that any new position was "a good fit,"before making a decision. (Id. at 6:20-7:24). Escobedo said that he wanted to determine whether Davidson could work with the employees in a new department, because "most people don't or can't work with [him.]" (Id. at 7:24, 8:16). Plaintiff said that he had been told that there were "15 complaints from people that [didn't] want to work with me." (Id. at 10:14-15). Escobedo also mentioned reports that, following FMC's November, 2013 Job Expo, Davidson had spoken with Tim Booth ["Booth"], the Asset Services Manager, about obtaining a different position in the company. (Id. at 5:12-16, 18:4-10; Motion, Ex. 6 ["Perdue Declaration"] at 2). Plaintiff told Escobedo that Booth had requested that he schedule a meeting to discuss different job opportunities, and that he had, in fact,...
To continue reading
Request your trial