Dillard v. Gen. Acid Proofing, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 12-cv-13813 |
| Parties | MAURICE DILLARD, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL ACID PROOFING, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff, Maurice Dillard, filed the instant action alleging that his former employer, Defendant General Acid Proofing ("General Acid"), wrongfully discriminated against him by terminating his employment based on his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff also brings negligence claims against General Acid and Defendants, Ball Corporation and Prince Resorts Hawaii Inc. ("Prince Resorts").
Presently before the Court is General Acid's and Ball Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on January 22, 2013. Also before the Court is Prince Resorts's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, filed on February 5, 2013. These matters are fully briefed and the Court concludes that oral argument will not aid in the resolution of this matter. Accordingly, thecourt will resolve the pending motions on the briefs. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part General Acid's and Ball Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment and grants Prince Resorts Motion to Dismiss. Furthermore, because the Court concludes that genuine issues of fact remain as to Plaintiff's asserted claims, General Acid's and Ball Corporation's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions, filed on March 27, 2013, is without merit. Accordingly, the Court denies General Acid's and Ball Corporation's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions.
Plaintiff was hired by General Acid on October 26, 2004. At that time, Plaintiff was still an apprentice with the cement masons. Plaintiff was later appointed to a journeyman position qualifying him to work with harmful chemicals. During his tenure with General Acid, Plaintiff was the only African American employee. He alleges that he was subject to racist jokes and was asked about the food he ate and about his hair.
During the week commencing April 16, 2012, General Acid started a project at Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation's facility in Kapolei, Hawaii. General Acid was retained to resurface the concrete foundation and install Cellicote Coroline 505, to protect the concrete from being etched by acid used in the manufacturing process. During his stay in Hawaii, Plaintiff, along with other General Acid employees, stayed at Prince Resorts in Waikiki, Hawaii.
On Sunday evening, April 15, 2012, Plaintiff and another employee, Steve Gagnon, drank alcohol in Plaintiff's room.1 Plaintiff drank six beers and Gagnon drank eleven beers. The emptybeer bottles and cans were stacked neatly by the garbage basket.
Plaintiff worked a twelve hour shift on Monday, April 16, 2012. Plaintiff also worked the entire twelve hour shift on Tuesday, April 17, 2012. During both days, Plaintiff was required to wear a work uniform that was made from TYVEK material and the temperature inside the plant reached somewhere between 80 and 90 degrees. While on break during his shift on Tuesday, Plaintiff began to feel cramps and stayed in the break room while the other employees returned to the plant floor to resume their work. Plaintiff believed he was dehydrated because he had experienced dehydration and its symptoms while working on another job for General Acid. One of Ball Corporation's maintenance workers noticed that Plaintiff was cramping and provided him with a five gallon drum of Gatorade. Plaintiff claims that when he returned to the floor, Nick Mavron, the foreman on the Hawaii assignment, noticed that Plaintiff did not appear well and pulled Plaintiff from the job he was doing and put him on cleanup detail, a less difficult job.
On Wednesday, April 18, 2012, Plaintiff failed to appear at the start of his shift. James Crimmins, Plaintiff's manager, contacted Prince Resorts's representatives to determine the reason Plaintiff did not appear for his scheduled shift. Prince Resorts's representatives informed Crimmins that its security staff entered Plaintiff's hotel room around 4:15 a.m. that morning when Plaintiff failed to respond to wake up calls. The security staff heard water running when they approached Plaintiff's room. When Plaintiff failed to come to the door, the security staff became concerned and broke the secondary lock gaining access to Plaintiff's room. An investigation revealed that:
Upon entering the room, [staff] discovered numerous amounts of empty alcohol containers and over the counter medication. [Staff] attempted to wake hotel guest Maurice Dillard, who was still asleep on the bed. Dillard responded by looking at [the staff], then turned over and continued to sleep.
See General Acid's Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. A. Around 7:45 a.m., Crimmins, escorted by Prince Resorts's security staff, entered Plaintiff's room. Crimmins found Plaintiff lying on the bed and claims that the room was trashed. See General Acid's Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. C. He noted that the furniture was disrupted, an empty case of beer was on the floor and cigarette butts were all over the room, and some had been put out on the carpeting. Id. When Crimmins pulled the blanket off of Plaintiff, Plaintiff grabbed it back, covered himself up again and went back to sleep. Id. The security staff advised Crimmins that Plaintiff had acted similarly that morning. Id. Crimmins checked on Plaintiff four to five more times throughout the morning, and each time, Plaintiff behaved in the same way. The third time that Crimmins checked on Plaintiff, he noticed that Plaintiff had gotten out of bed since the last time he had been in the room and had defecated in the bath tub and gone back to bed. Mavron's wife, Renee Mavron, came with Crimmins to check the room during this visit. In describing the condition of the room during her deposition, Mrs. Mavron stated:
Mrs. Mavron, who is a medical assistant, also checked Plaintiff's pulse and determined that it was in the normal range.
When Shane Wiedyke, General Manager for General Acid, learned of these events, he contacted Plaintiff and advised him that an airplane ticket had been left for him at the hotel's front desk and directed him to return to Michigan. The next day Mavron drove Plaintiff to the airport. Mavron asked Plaintiff if he wanted any medical treatment, and Plaintiff declined.
Immediately upon his return to Michigan on Friday, April 20, 2012, Plaintiff went to Sinai Grace Hospital, where he was treated for acute dehydration and a swollen jaw. Plaintiff was given two bolus of saline and penicillin. On April 23, 2012, Wiedyke terminated Plaintiff's employment purportedly based on Plaintiff's conduct in Hawaii. On April 25, 2012, Plaintiff went to General Acid's facility to pick up his paycheck. Plaintiff informed Wiedyke that he did not know what had happened to him in Hawaii and that he had not been drinking on Tuesday evening. Wiedyke told Plaintiff to bring him some medical documentation and that they could discuss the possibility of Plaintiff returning to work for General Acid.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) empowers the court to render summary judgment forthwith "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." See Redding v. St. Eward, 241 F.3d 530, 532 (6th Cir. 2001). The Supreme Court has affirmed the court's use of summary judgment as an integral part of the fair and efficient administration of justice. The procedure is not a disfavored procedural shortcut. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986); see also Cox v. Kentucky Dept. of Transp., 53 F.3d 146, 149 (6th Cir. 1995).
The standard for determining whether summary judgment is appropriate is "'whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.'" Amway Distributors Benefits Ass'n v. Northfield Ins. Co., 323 F.3d 386, 390 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986)). The evidence and all reasonable inferences must be construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Redding, 241 F.3d at 532 (6th Cir. 2001). "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original); see also National Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Eliadis, Inc., 253 F.3d 900, 907 (6th Cir. 2001).
If the movant establishes by use of the material specified in Rule 56(c) that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the opposing party must...
To continue reading
Request your trial