Farrakhan v. Dal Glob. Servs., Civil Action 1:19-cv-05804-MLB-RDC
| Decision Date | 22 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 1:19-cv-05804-MLB-RDC |
| Parties | SAKIKO FARRAKHAN, Plaintiff, v. DAL GLOBAL SERVICES d/b/a DELTA GLOBAL SERVICES, DELTA AIRLINES, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is Defendants DAL Global Services (“Delta Global Services”) and Delta Airlines Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 37). In this employment action, Plaintiff Sakiko Farrakhan brings claims for discrimination based on her race, national origin, and religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; discrimination based on race under 42 U.S.C § 1981; and a violation of her right to free association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S Constitution. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED.
In December 2019, Plaintiff filed the complaint against Delta Global Services, Delta Airlines, Inc., and John Does 1-10 (collectively, the “Defendants”).[1] (Doc. 1). In her complaint, Plaintiff, a Japanese-American and member of the Nation of Islam, alleges that she worked for Delta as a security officer. (Id. ¶ 7). In December 2018, she was approached by a coworker who recommended that she apply to work as a flight attendant. (Id. ¶ 10). Her application was ultimately rejected, but in preparation for it, she researched general information about Delta's airplanes. (Id. ¶¶ 12-15). While she was working on January 4, 2019, another Delta employee escorted her to a building on Delta's campus, where she was interviewed by two other individuals about why she had accessed information relating to Delta aircraft, who her husband was, and whether she had provided any information about the aircraft to third parties. (Id. ¶¶ 16-21). Afterward, Plaintiff was suspended without pay or an explanation for the interview. (Id. ¶ 21).
Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on January 26, 2020, and the case proceeded to discovery in March 2020. (Docs. 4, 12). Discovery concluded in December 2020. (See Doc. 33). On January 19, 2021, Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims on the merits. (Doc. 37). Plaintiff filed a response brief on February 8, 2021, and Defendants filed a reply brief on February 17. (Docs. 39, 40). After reviewing the parties' arguments and the materials submitted in support, the undersigned finds that the instant motion is ripe for review.
The relevant facts of this case are not in dispute.[2] Plaintiff is a practicing Muslim and a member of the Nation of Islam. (Pl.'s Statement of Material Facts (“PSMF”) ¶¶ 1-2, Doc. 39-2). Consistent with her faith, she wears a head covering known as a “Tam” and covers the rest of her body, with the exception of her hands, while at work. (Id. ¶¶ 1-3). Plaintiff's last name “Farrakhan” is commonly used within the Nation of Islam. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4). Her husband, Khalid Farrakhan, is also an officer in the Nation of Islam. (Id. ¶ 5).
Plaintiff works as a security officer at Delta's corporate headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. (“Def.'s Statement of Material Facts (“DSMF”) ¶ 2, Doc. 37-1). Plaintiff's primary job responsibilities include verifying the credentials of employees and authorized guests at Delta's headquarters. (Id. ¶ 3).
In December 2018, George Taylor, Delta's Manager of Internal Security, received a report from another security manager that Plaintiff had accessed technical manuals for aircraft engines and other materials through Delta's internal computer network.[3] (DSMF ¶¶ 1-2). According to the report, Plaintiff took notes on the specifications of Delta aircraft and placed them in a personal bag. (Id. ¶ 2). Taylor and Security Investigator Pamela Fears reviewed security camera photographs overlooking Plaintiff's workstation, which showed that she had looked through Delta Technical Operations Manual with jet engine schematics. (Id. ¶ 6-7). Afterward, Delta's corporate security department and cyber security team conducted a forensic examination of Plaintiff's computer to determine the extent of the information she had accessed. (Id. ¶ 8). The investigation revealed that, starting on November 11, 2018, Plaintiff had accessed a large volume of information related to the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft, which included complex information and technical specifications for engines, climate control, electrical and power systems, fuel systems, flight controls, communication systems, and other components. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 9, 13). She also accessed documents relating to Delta's flight attendant program. (Id. ¶ 11). The information that Plaintiff accessed did not relate to any function of her position as a security officer, (see Doc. 37-6), and she was required to use her Delta-provided password to access it. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 15).
On January 4, 2019, Taylor and Fears interviewed Plaintiff to discover her reason for accessing the technical information.[4] (Id. ¶ 16). Among Plaintiff's stated reasons, she said that she was personally interested in the airplanes, that she was interested in becoming a flight attendant, and that she wanted to learn about the 757 and 767 aircraft in case she brought friends or family to Delta's museum. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 25, 28). Despite the fact that Plaintiff's coworker allegedly witnessed her taking notes, Plaintiff denied that she had done so. (Taylor Decl. ¶ 14, Doc. 37-3). She also admitted that she had viewed this information from both her work computer and a personal computer and that she had no technical knowledge that would allow her to understand this information. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 15). At one point, Plaintiff stated that she was not a spy, even though Taylor and Fears had not asked her. (Id. ¶ 12). However, Taylor and Fears asked her about husband's name, how they met, and how he was employed. (Farrakhan Dep. at 95, Doc. 37-5). They also asked whether anyone in her family was a pilot. Id. Although no one in Plaintiff's family was, she answered that her husband was learning how to sail and that he was previously interested in aviation school. (Id. at 95-96).
After the interview, Taylor and Fears determined that Plaintiff should be suspended from work while the investigation was pending. (DSMF ¶ 29). Pursuant to Delta's corporate policy, Plaintiff's pay was also suspended. (Id. ¶ 33). Approximately three weeks later, Taylor completed his investigation by reviewing all of the information that Plaintiff had accessed and concluded that it did not pose a safety or other risk. (Id. ¶ 34-35). Plaintiff received permission to return to work on January 23, 2019, and she returned to work on January 28. (Id. ¶ 36). Plaintiff received full pay for the time missed, but because of the investigation, there was a six-day delay in receiving one paycheck. (Id. ¶¶ 37-38). Plaintiff remains a Delta employee. (Id. ¶ 37).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), the Court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A material fact is any fact that “is a legal element of the claim under the applicable substantive law which might affect the outcome of the case.” Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir. 1997). A genuine dispute exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). When evaluating the merits of a motion for summary judgment, the court must “view the evidence and all factual inferences raised by it in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and resolve all reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of the non-moving party.” Comer v. City of Palm Bay, Fla., 265 F.3d 1186, 1192 (11th Cir. 2001).
A party seeking summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion.” Celotex Corp v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A moving party meets this burden merely by “‘showing'- that is, pointing out to the district court-that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 325.
If the moving party provides a basis for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must respond with record evidence showing a genuine dispute, as mere conclusions and unsupported statements by the nonmoving party are insufficient. Id. at 324; Ellis v. England, 432 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2005). Similarly, “[s]peculation or conjecture cannot create a genuine issue of material fact.” S.E.C. v. Monterosso, 756 F.3d 1326, 1333 (11th Cir. 2014). “[A] plaintiff's failure to support an essential element of her case renders all other facts immaterial and requires the court to grant summary judgment for the defendant.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-23.
Defendants have moved for summary judgment on each of Plaintiff's claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. (See Doc. 37-2). As to Plaintiff's constitutional claims, Defendants argue that she cannot show that they are State actors, a necessary prerequisite to those claims. (Id. at 13 n.6). As to her discrimination claims under Title VII and Section 1981, Defendants primarily argue, first, that Plaintiff cannot establish that she suffered an adverse employment action-an element of her prima facie case-and, second, that she cannot show that their legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for her suspension...
To continue reading
Request your trial