Davis v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.

• Decision Date: 16 August 2010
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 08-586-SLR
• Citation: 733 F.Supp.2d 474
• Parties: Rufus DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

733 F.Supp.2d 474

Rufus DAVIS, Plaintiff,

v.NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Defendant.

Civ. No. 08-586-SLR.

United States District Court,

D. Delaware.

Aug. 16, 2010.

Glenn Brown, Esquire of Real World Law, Wilmington, DE, of Counsel, Frank J. Conley, Esquire of The Conley Firm, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Virginia A. Zrake, Esquire of Law Office of Virginia A. Zrake, LLC, Lewes, DE, of Counsel, Darrell R. VanDeusen, Esquire and Michael Severino, Esquire of Kollman

& Saucier, P.A., Timonium, MD, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

On September 18, 2008, plaintiff Rufus Davis ("plaintiff") filed this action against defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak"). Plaintiff alleges employment discrimination based on race and disability, as well as retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a ("Title VII"), the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("the ADA"), and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 793 et seq. ("Section 504"). (D.I. 14 at 1) Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, declaratory relief, punitive and compensatory damages, and attorney fees. ( Id.) Presently before the court is Amtrak's motion for summary judgment on all claims. (D.I. 37) The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For the reasons discussed below, the court grants in part and denies in part Amtrak's motion for summary judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is an African American man who has worked for Amtrak since January 25, 1993. (D.I. 14 at 2) Plaintiff suffers from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ("COPD"), which is a lung disease that limits breathing. ( Id.) Upon commencing his employment, plaintiff received Amtrak's Standards of Excellence ¹ as well as its Policy for Handling Formal Discipline. ² ( Id. at 221-33) Plaintiff first worked as a machinist at Amtrak's facility in Chicago, Illinois, and later moved to the Wilmington, Delaware location. (D.I. 39 at A13-14; A218) After nine months at the Wilmington location, plaintiff was promoted to the position of foreman; however, on July 30, 2004, he was displaced by a more senior employee per Amtrak's seniority policy. ( Id. at A14, A212-19) As a result, plaintiff bid to displace a more junior employee on the second shift at Amtrak's Bear, Delaware maintenance shop (the "Bear Car Shop"). ( Id. at A207) Plaintiff's transfer to the Bear Car Shop was initially blocked by Assistant Superintendent Ed Hill ("Hill") because plaintiff's wife, Pamela Davis, worked as an upholsterer at the facility, and Amtrak's nepotism policy bars employees from directly supervising family members. ( Id. at A207, A219) Thereafter, plaintiff contacted a union representative at the American Railway and Airway Supervisors Association ("ARASA"), and was ultimately allowed to transfer. ( Id.) From late 2004 until July 2006, plaintiff acted assupervisor to a group of craft employees who made up a "gang" (according to Amtrak's vernacular). ( Id. at A20-21, A206) During this time period, at least two other African American supervisors, Roosevelt Gill ("Gill") and Cecil Simmons, were employed at Amtrak. ( Id. at A30-31, A207)

Beginning November 22, 2004, plaintiffs workspace and property became subject to vandalism and theft. ( Id. at A251-54) Plaintiffs filing cabinet was broken into and some items were stolen from his work area, including: two flashlights, batteries, a walkie-talkie radio, and plaintiffs clip-on lamp. ( Id.) Plaintiff filed a report with the Amtrak Police Department ("APD") and informed his supervisors McDowell, Joe Walters, Harvey Poole ("Poole"), and Gill but did not specifically allege that the incident involved racial discrimination. ( Id. at A234)

On December 31, 2004, the desk which plaintiff was sharing with Carol Crisconi, a Caucasian co-worker, was broken into, along with plaintiffs filing cabinet. ( Id. at A81-82, A257) A phone charger and battery transformer were removed and thrown in the trash, and trash cans were placed on top of the desk. ( Id.) Plaintiff filed a report with the APD regarding this incident without specifically alleging racial discrimination. ( Id.)

On May 9, 2005, plaintiff sent a memo to his supervisors Hill, McDowell, and Poole complaining that his responsibilities had been increased in an attempt to set him up for failure. (D.I. 40 at B6-7) The memo stated that the addition of several full time employees to plaintiff's charge would decrease his effectiveness, as he was already disadvantaged by not having an office. ( Id.) Plaintiff suggested that the "gang" be split up and be divided among the second and third shift as a solution. ( Id.) Plaintiff alleges that the additional employees were eventually removed from the "gang" only after plaintiff bid for a different position. (D.I. 42 at B15-16)

On June 17, 2005, further vandalism and theft of plaintiffs workspace occurred. (D.I. 39 at A236, A263) His desk was broken into and several items were stolen, such as a first aid kit, an eye glass cleaning station, and a clipboard with papers underneath it. ( Id.) Plaintiff reported the vandalism to the APD, but did not specifically allege that he suspected any racial discrimination motivating the incident. ( Id.)

Some time before August 2005, a vacant office which was promised to plaintiff was given to a Caucasian co-worker named Kelly Bradigan ("Bradigan") after plaintiff had cleaned the office and requested the key. ( Id. at A144-46) Plaintiff voiced his concern to his supervisor Jim McDowell ("McDowell") that the decision to allow Bradigan to have the office was racially motivated. ( Id. at A146) Unlike the second shift, there are no general foremen on the third shift; Bradigan was the sole foreman on the third shift and, therefore, required access to emergency phones and other equipment within the office. ( Id. at A208) Thereafter, plaintiff did not have an office until he accepted the position of seat shop foreman in July 2006. ( Id.)

Also in or around August 2005, a falsified bid sheet was submitted in plaintiffs name. ( Id. at A88) The sheet contained plaintiff's forged signature on a request to apply for a new position within Amtrak. ( Id.) At that point, plaintiff requested from his supervisors Hill and Daniel McFadden ("McFadden") that he be moved to the "cage," an enclosed and pad-locked workspace, to prevent further mischief. ( Id. at A103-04, A197, A208) Initially, Hill and McFadden resisted, but eventually acquiesced. ( Id. at A208) On November 2, 2005, plaintiff arrived at his desk to find the "cage" lock glued shut, feces on hisdesk, trash piled on the roof, and broom handles sticking down into the work area. ( Id, at A237) Plaintiff notified his supervisors Poole and McDowell through an e-mail detailing the damages; he did not specifically allege racial discrimination. ( Id.)

On February 9, 2006, plaintiff reported to work to find the "cage" lock glued shut again, as well as spray glue and "oil dry" on his desk surface. ( Id. at A267) On February 10, plaintiff apprised McFadden of the incidents accruing over the past months, and followed up by e-mailing McFadden, McDowell, Poole, and Hill on February 12. ( Id. at A238) Although plaintiff expressed his fear of escalation and impending physical violence in the e-mail, he did not specifically allege racial discrimination. ( Id.)

On February 13, 2006, McFadden reported the vandalism of plaintiffs workstation to Lieutenant Walter Wahler of the APD. ( Id. at A239) Despite plaintiff's failure to allege a discriminatory motivation and the absence of evidence indicating such, McFadden asked that the police address the possibility. ( Id. at A264-67) Plaintiff also filed a complaint with the APD, but did not mention the possibility of racial animus. ( Id. at A240-41)

On February 22, 2006, Sergeant Maureen Powers of the APD contacted Amtrak's Dispute Resolution Office ("DRO") about potential discrimination and harassment linked to the theft and vandalism. ( Id. at A243) Later that week, DRO Case Intake Coordinator Glenda Atkinson ("Atkinson") wrote to plaintiff, instructing him to respond if he believed the incidents were related to his race. ( Id. at A244) Plaintiff did not respond to Atkinson's letter, so the DRO investigation was closed. ( Id. at A245-46) Plaintiff concedes that he does not know who committed the acts, and that there was no "calling card" left after any of the incidents of theft and vandalism to signal typical racially discriminatory motivation, ( Id.)

On February 27, 2006, plaintiff logged on to his computer and noticed that it was attempting to access the website "blackpeoplemeet.com." ( Id. at A108-09) Plaintiff immediately sent an email to McFadden to notify him that someone had, unbeknownst to him, accessed an unauthorized website on his computer. ( Id. at A150-51) Plaintiff alleges that McFadden failed to investigate the matter. ( Id.)

On March 9, 2006, plaintiff found a plastic bag on his desk containing a white powdery substance, which he brought to the attention of McDowell and Hill. ( Id. at A110, A250) The substance was tested and turned out to be gypsum, a harmless material used in drywall, but the incident prompted McFadden to distribute an interoffice memo the following week reinforcing Amtrak's policies regarding harassment and discrimination. ( Id. at A249-50, A242) McFadden also planned to install surveillance cameras in plaintiffs workspace; however, this became unnecessary as plaintiff accepted the position of seat shop foreman and moved his workspace. ( Id. at A249, A115) In June 2006, plaintiff conveyed his recognition of McFadden's efforts, expressing the "highest praise and utmost respect for the way that McFadden resolved the situation." ( Id. at A277)

In July 2006, members of plaintiff's "gang" began to complain to Hill about plaintiff...