Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Jetstream Ground Servs., Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 13-cv-02340-CMA-KMT |
| Citation | 134 F.Supp.3d 1298 |
| Parties | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, Safia Abdulle Ali, Sahra Bashi Abdirahman, Hana Bokku, Sadiyo Hassan Jama, and Saida Warsame, a/k/a Amino Warsame, Applicants for Intervention, v. Jetstream Ground Services, Inc., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Iris Halpern, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Denver, CO, Hillary K. Valderrama, Wasan Awad, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff.
Dana Lee Menzel, Diane Smith King, Hunter Anthony Swain, King & Greisen, LLP, Denver, CO, for Applicants for Intervention.
Andrew Wayne Volin, Matthew M. Morrison, Raymond Myles Deeny, William Albert Wright, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Denver, CO, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S PARTIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING THE EEOC's MOTION TO STRIKE
In this religious discrimination and retaliation case, Plaintiff-Intervenors—five female Muslim cabin cleaners who worked for a United Airlines contractor—allege that Defendant JetStream Ground Services, Inc. (JetStream), failed to hire them after they requested to cover their heads and wear long skirts for religious purposes. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) also alleges that two so-called "aggrieved individuals" (also Muslim employees of JetStream) were laid off or selected for part-time work for the same discriminatory reasons.
This matter is before the Court on JetStream's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 83) and the Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 84.) Defendant's Motion argues that summary judgment should be entered in its favor on all of the claims due to the EEOC's failure to satisfy its conciliation requirements. (Doc. # 83 at 1.) It also seeks summary judgment on the two aggrieved individual's religious accommodation, disparate treatment, and retaliation claims. (Id. ) Lastly, it contends that summary judgment should be entered on some of the Intervenors' damages, because the job offers made to the Intervenors limit their recovery of both back and front pay. (Id. at 1-2.)
Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment argues that the Court should enter summary judgment in their favor on several of Jetstream's defenses, including (1) the exhaustion of remedies and administrative prerequisites; (2) the viability of Plaintiffs' claims based on statute of limitations, waiver, estoppel, and laches; and (3) defenses alleging that the religious accommodations at issue are an undue burden. (Doc. # 84.)
JetStream provides a variety of support services for airlines—including cargo, freight, and mail handling services; aircraft maintenance services; and cabin cleaning services—at airports throughout the United States, including Denver International Airport (DIA). (Doc. # 83, ¶ 1.) In early October of 2008, Jetstream was awarded a contract with United Airlines (United) to provide cabin-cleaning services at DIA. (Id ., ¶ 2.) In December of 2008, Jetstream also assumed United's overnight and daytime cleaning operations from AirServ Corporation ("AirServ"),2 United's prior cabin cleaning service provider at DIA. (Id ., ¶ 3.) JetStream announced that it would interview AirServ's prior employees for its new operations, and conducted these interviews on October 21-23, 2008. (Doc. # 84-57 at 2.)
On February 5, 2009, five of AirServ's female cabin-cleaning employees—Safia Abdulle Ali, Sahra Abdirahman, Hana Bokku, Sadiyo Jama, and Amino Warsame ("Intervenors")—all of whom are Muslim Ethiopian and Somali immigrants, filed Charges of Discrimination (Charges) against JetStream, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and religion. (Id ., ¶ 4.) Specificially, the Intervenors allege that they were not hired during the transition between the AirServ and the JetStream contract because their religious beliefs require them to cover their hair, ears, and neck with a hijab3 whenever they are in public. (Doc. # 84, ¶ 1.) The women also believe that they must dress is a way that is not revealing of their form or body, such that they must wear full-length skirts in public. (Id. ) JetStream's (current and past) uniform policy requires that cabin cleaners to wear pants while working, even if they request to wear skirts for religious reasons. (Doc. # 117, ¶ 52.) The parties dispute whether, prior to a change in 2011, Jetstream permitted its cabin cleaners to wear hijabs or headscarves—either as a matter of formal policy or actual practice. (Compare Doc. # 117, ¶¶ 50-52 to Doc. # 130, ¶¶ 50-52).4
In her Charge, each Intervenor alleged that she worked for AirServ for some years prior to Jetstream's assumption of the United contract; that AirServ had provided her with a religious accommodation to its uniform policy, such that she was allowed to work while wearing a hijab and a full-length skirt; and that she had worked wearing both items of clothing without incident or injury. (See, e.g. , Doc. # 84-9 at 2.) Each Intervenor also alleged that in October of 2008, during the transition between the AirServ and the Jetstream contracts, Jetstream's Vice President, David Norris, began interviewing AirServ's employees to determine if they should be "re-hired" at JetStream. (Id. )
The EEOC has submitted evidence regarding Mr. Norris' allegedly open animosity toward Muslim women wearing hijabs. Specifically, Michael Maina, who was employed by both AirServ and JetStream as a Duty Manager, provided a declaration describing the following comments allegedly made by Mr. Norris:
On or about two weeks after JetStream took over at DIA, I recall David Norris making a comment about a female Muslim employee who was wearing a headscarf. He stated that "United Airlines passengers would think they were terrorists," and that "JetStream should fire them" referring to female employees who wore headscarves. He made this comment in the break room to me and several other managers. On another occasion, maybe two or three weeks after JetStream took over the contract from AirServices, David Norris personally spoke with me and told me that the Muslim women who were working for JetStream should be fired because they looked like "terrorists." I told him that he could not do that—that he could not fire employees because of their religious beliefs once they were already hired. He just replied that it was his company and he could do whatever he wanted.
(Doc. # 117-14, ¶¶ 1-2, 10-11.) Plaintiffs also submitted a declaration from Brenda Holan, who worked as an Administrative Manager for JetStream and helped interview applicants during the United transition. (Doc. # 117-15, ¶¶ 1, 5.) She described the following interactions with Mr. Norris:
I recall that a number of times during the days we were conducting interviews and throughout the transition period David Norris stating [sic] that female employees "can't wear headscarves" and that he expected them to wear uniforms. I recall that he stated that he did not care if the reason was "religion" or not. Female cabin-cleaners would not be allowed to wear headscarves, "no ifs, ands, or buts." He also said that he wanted ...During the interviews, David Norris made many references to "these people" which I thought were derogatory and insulting to the applicants. I also recall David Norris stating once at one of the daily managers meeting that we should not hire any female Muslim employees and that the ones we had hired we should fire because when they wore headscarves "United passengers would think they were terrorists." I cautioned him that he couldn't do that and it was wrong. I was appalled.
(Id. , ¶¶ 16-17, 19.)
During his interviews, Mr. Norris asked Ms. Ali, Ms. Jama, and Ms. Warsame about whether AirServ had permitted them to wear skirts and hijabs at work. (Doc. ## 83, ¶ 5; 117, ¶ 1.) The women confirmed that, indeed, AirServ had allowed them to work with skirts and hijabs, and they told Norris that they needed to wear these garments for religious reasons. (Doc. ## 83, ¶ 2; 117, ¶¶ 2-4; 117-57 at 17.) Mr. Norris allegedly responded by telling Ms. Ali, Ms. Jama, and Ms. Warsame that he had an "issue" with the skirts; after hearing this, all three agreed to wear pants (because they thought they needed to do so to be hired), but Norris allegedly told them that JetStream still would not hire them because they could not agree to work without hijabs. (Doc. # 117-57 at 7, Doc. 13, ¶ 41). Ms. Warsame also alleges that she offered to provide Mr. Norris with a note from the Denver Islamic Society, explaining that Islamic tenets provide that a woman is not allowed to wear pants and that she is also supposed to cover her hair, but that he refused to accept it. (Doc. # 84-12.) After the interviews, the women were allegedly told that they would receive a follow-up phone call; ultimately, however, the five women were not "re-hired" as employees by Jetstream.5 (Doc. ## 84, ¶ 7, 84-8 to -12.) In July of 2009, each Intervenor filed an Amended Charge, adding an allegation of retaliation. (Doc. # 83, ¶ 7.)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. JBS United States, LLC
..."freestanding" accommodation claims that are not tied to an adverse employment action. See, e.g., EEOC v. JetStream Ground Serv., Inc. , 134 F.Supp.3d 1298, 1324-26 (D. Colo. 2015), reconsideration denied , No. 13-cv-02340-CMA-KMT, 2016 WL 879625, at *3-*5 (D. Colo. Mar. 8, 2016) ; Walker v......
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. W. Distrib. Co.
...one goal ‘among others.’ " EEOC v. United Parcel Serv. , 860 F.2d 372, 375 (10th Cir. 1988) ; accord EEOC v. Jetstream Ground Servs., Inc. , 134 F.Supp.3d 1298, 1327 (D. Colo. 2015) (holding that § 706 "authorizes the EEOC to bring suit in its own name, on behalf of a ‘person or persons agg......
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. JBS USA, LLC
...was a motivating factor in the employer's decision to take an adverse employment action against her." EEOC v. Jetstream Ground Servs., Inc. , 134 F. Supp. 3d 1298, 1318 (D. Colo. 2015). In its complaint, the EEOC alleges that defendant failed to accommodate the charging parties’ religious p......
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. W. Distrib. Co., Civil Case No. 1:16–cv–01727–LTB–NYW
...efforts, a court may not "examine the details of the offers and counteroffers between the parties"); EEOC v. Jetstream Ground Servs., Inc. , 134 F.Supp.3d 1298, 1316 (D. Colo. 2015) ("That JetStream would have preferred individualized settlement counter-offers to match its own, or wished th......