Dipigney v. Autozoners, LLC
| Decision Date | 02 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 13-cv-304-LM |
| Citation | 2014 DNH 214 |
| Parties | Gaius Dipigney v. AutoZoners, LLC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire |
In a case that has been removed from the Merrimack County Superior Court, Gaius Dipigney has sued his former employer, AutoZoners, LLC, in two counts, asserting claims under both state and federal law for national-origin discrimination. Before the court is AutoZoners' motion for summary judgment. Dipigney objects. For the reasons that follow, AutoZoners' motion for summary judgment is granted.
"Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Ponte v. Steelcase Inc., 741 F.3d 310, 319 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting Cortés-Rivera v. Dept. of Corr., 626 F.3d 21, 26 (1st Cir. 2010)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must "view[ ] the entire record 'in the light mosthospitable to the party opposing summary judgment, indulging all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.'" Winslow v. Aroostook Cnty., 736 F.3d 23, 29 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Suarez v. Pueblo Int'l, Inc., 229 F.3d 49, 53 (1st Cir. 2000)).
"The object of summary judgment is to 'pierce the boilerplate of the pleadings and assay the parties' proof in order to determine whether trial is actually required.'" Dávila v. Corp. de P.R. para la Diffusión Púb., 498 F.3d 9, 12 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting Acosta v. Ames Dep't Stores, Inc., 386 F.3d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 2004)). "[T]he court's task is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Noonan v. Staples, Inc., 556 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir. 2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are undisputed. Dipigney is African American. He was born in St. Lucia, West Indies, and speaks with an accent. AutoZoners hired him as a part-time sales clerk in September of 2009. In April of 2011 he received a promotion to the position of Parts Sales Manager and a transfer to AutoZoners' store in Hooksett, NewHampshire. Neil Thompson was the District Manager for the New England District.1
As a Parts Sales Manager, Dipigney was responsible for answering telephone calls from commercial customers when those who had primary responsibility for that task were unavailable. As a result, Dipigney answered about one call per day from a commercial customer. In April or May of 2011, Thompson learned that some commercial customers had reported having difficulty understanding Dipigney on the telephone because of his accent. In May of 2011, Thompson spoke with Dipigney about that issue. Dipigney says that Thompson said: "Gaius, I would like you not to answer the commercial calls because customers don't understand your accent." Def.'s Mem. of Law, Billok Decl., Ex. G, Dipigney Dep. (doc. no. 16-9) 61:18-20. Thompson describes his conversation with Dipigney a bit differently: Def.'sMem. of Law, Thompson Decl. (doc. no. 16-26) ¶ 22. For purpose of ruling on AutoZoners' motion for summary judgment, the court adopts Dipigney's version.
"On May 22, 2011, Dipigney was promoted to full-time statu and received [a] pay raise [from $10.50 per hour] to $11.35 per hour." Def.'s Mem. of Law, Haluga Decl. (doc. no 16-12) ¶ 11. In October of 2011, five months after Thompson told Dipigney no to answer calls from commercial customers, Dipigney received a positive performance review and an increase in pay that he characterizes as one of the highest raises given to any employe in the Hooksett store. See Dipigney Dep. 76:23-77:1.
The incident that led to Dipigney's discharge occurred on March 30, 2012, eleven months after Thompson told Dipigney not to answer calls from commercial customers. On that day, after his shift was over, Dipigney spent approximately 45 minutes inside the Hooksett store, waiting to be picked up, while wearing a hip holster containing a visible handgun. In 2012, the AutoZoners company policy regarding workplace security, of which Dipigney was aware, provided in pertinent part:
Def.'s Mem. of Law, Haluga Decl., Ex. H (doc. no. 16-20), at Bates 0421. Later in the day on which Dipigney carried his gun inside the Hooksett store, Thompson received a complaint from a customer concerning an employee at the Hooksett store named Gaius who was carrying a gun on his waist. Thompson directed the Regional Human Resources Director, Nick Haluga, to investigate. Haluga subsequently reported to Thompson that Dipigney had admitted to bringing his gun inside the store, and recommend that Dipigney be discharged. Thompson concurred, and on April 11, 2012, AutoZoners terminated Dipigney's employment. This suit followed.
In his complaint, Dipigney claimed that the change in his job duties in May of 2011 and his discharge in April of 2012 were acts of racial discrimination by AutoZoners. Dipigney now characterizes his claim as one for national-origin discrimination based upon his discharge, and the court proceeds on that basis. At various points Dipigney also characterizes Thompson's directive not to answer calls from commercial customers as an illegal act. But, it does not appear that he is basing a legal claim on that directive and, even if he were, the court would readily rule that directing Dipigney not to answer calls from commercial customers does not qualify as asufficiently adverse employment action to support a Title VII claim. As the First Circuit has explained:
An adverse employment action "typically involves discrete changes in the terms of employment, such as 'hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing significant change in benefits.'" Morales-Vallellanes v. Potter, 605 F.3d 27, 35 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761 (1998)). To be adverse, an employment action "must materially change the conditions of plaintiffs' employ." Id. (quoting Gu v. Bos. Police Dep't, 312 F.3d 6, 14 (1st Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Cham v. Station Operators, Inc., 685 F.3d 87, 94 (1st Cir. 2012) (). Telling Dipigney not to answer calls from commercial customers was not a material change in the conditions of Dipigney's employment. See id. ().
Dipigney asserts claims for national-origin discrimination under both New Hampshire's Law Against Discrimination, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. ch. 354-A (Count I), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Count II). "Because the New Hampshire Supreme Court relies on Title VII cases to analyze claims under RSA 354-A, the court will address [Dipigney' state and federal] claims together using the TitleVII standard." Hubbard v. Tyco Intg. Cable Sys., Inc., 985 F. Supp. 2d 207, 218 (D.N.H. 2013) ).
Under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee because of the employee's national origin. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Because there is no direct evidence of discrimination in this case, the court must "apply the burden-shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), to help 'sharpen the inquiry into the elusive factual question' of the employer's motivation." Hicks v. Johnson, 755 F.3d 738, 744 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 n.8 (1981); citing Johnson v. Univ. of P.R., 714 F.3d 48, 53-54 (1st Cir. 2013)) (parallel citations omitted).
Under that framework, if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, an inference of discrimination arises, and the burden of production shifts to the defendant to produce evidence that the challenged employment action was taken for a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. Johnson, 714 F.3d at 53-54. If the employer supplies such evidence, the plaintiff is left with the burden to prove "by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer's proffered reason is pretextual and that the actual reason for the adverse employment action is discriminatory." Id. at 54; see alsoPearson v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 723 F.3d 36, 40 (1st Cir. 2013).
Hicks, 755 F.3d at 744. Under the circumstances of this case, to make out a prima facie case, Dipigney "must show that: (1) [he] is a member of a protected class; (2) [his] employer took an adverse employment action against [him]; (3) [he] was otherwise qualified; and (4) [his] position remained open or was filled by a person with qualifications similar to [his]." Johnson, 714 F. 3d at 53 n.6 (citing García v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 535 F.3d 23, 30 n.2 (1st Cir. 2008); Rodriguez-Cuervos v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 181 F.3d 15, 19 (1st Cir. 1999)).
It is not entirely certain that Dipigney has established a prima facie case. There is no problem with the first three elements. Dipigney's West Indian heritage places him in a protected class for purposes of a claim for national-origin discrimination, and his discharge was an adverse employment action. AutoZoners does not contest the third element, and all the evidence suggests Dipigney was...
To continue reading
Request your trial