Fuller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10-CV-430 (MTT) |
| Parties | HENRY FULLER, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia |
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 21). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
This is an action for disparate treatment and retaliation on the basis of race by Plaintiff Henry Fuller pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. While the Plaintiff was an Assistant Manager of Store 930 in Montgomery, Alabama, he applied to become a Co-Manager of Store 1153 in Macon, Georgia.2 The Plaintiff was interviewed by Market Operations Manager David James "Jimmy" Clark, a white male, Market Human Resources Manager Lisa Atchison, a black female, and Store Manager John Futch, a white male. On November 8, 2008, thePlaintiff was selected for the position at Store 1153. The Plaintiff was the only Co-Manager at that time.
On January 7, 2009, the Plaintiff responded to a call for a manager to go to the pharmacy because a customer was angry she had received the wrong prescription. Although Futch was over the entire store, including the pharmacy, the pharmacy practically functioned as an independent entity. The Plaintiff gave the customer a refund, and a female pharmacist did not like how the Plaintiff intervened in one of their matters. The pharmacist invited the Plaintiff to talk in private in what turned out to be the pharmacy bathroom. The Plaintiff went inside even though he knew it was a bathroom, and later acknowledged that "as a member of management, [he] should have known not to go in that bathroom." (Doc. 24-2, Deposition of Henry Fuller, at 178). The pharmacist and the Plaintiff engaged in a heated discussion, which concluded when the pharmacist opened the bathroom door and used some degree of force to get the Plaintiff out the bathroom.
A "Red Book" investigation into the matter was conducted shortly thereafter. According to the Plaintiff, Janice Sharp, a white woman who was the Market Grocery Manager, collected statements. (Doc. 24-2, Deposition of Henry Fuller, at 224). After the Red Book investigation concluded on February 15, 2009, Atchison, according to the Plaintiff, instructed Futch to issue "Decision-Making Day coaching" to the Plaintiff. (Doc. 24-2, Deposition of Henry Fuller, at 273-74, 278). The Defendant has four Coaching for Improvement levels based on the severity of the infraction: verbal coaching, writtencoaching, Decision-Making Day coaching, and termination.3 (Doc. 24-30). An employee may only receive one Decision-Making Day coaching within a 12-month period; a subsequent performance or behavioral issue is subject to immediate termination. (Doc. 24-30, at 3). The Plaintiff, believing level-three coaching was too severe, complained of racial discrimination by Futch to Atchison, the woman who instructed Futch to issue Decision-Making Day coaching, and Clark. The Decision-Making Day decision was not overturned.
In April 2009, Donna Bostick, a white female, was hired as the second Co-Manager at Store 1153. That month, Assistant Manager Sylvia Ann Ross, a black female, was terminated for insubordination by Futch at Atchison's instruction because Ross allegedly recorded a conversation between her and Futch. (Doc. 24-5, Deposition of Peggy Blanton, at 23). Ross was not given much explanation about why she was terminated and believed race was a factor in that decision, so Atchison, the woman who recommended Ross' termination, investigated the matter. Ross was not pleased with the outcome of the "investigation," and the Regional General Manager asked Peggy Blanton, a black female who was the human resources manager in another market, to conduct an independent investigation. Ross provided a list of employees she thought would have relevant knowledge to Blanton, but she did not name the Plaintiff.According to Blanton, the Plaintiff did not want to provide a written statement because he did not want his name mentioned. (Doc. 24-5, Deposition of Peggy Blanton, at 26). However he was involved, the Plaintiff does not recall "invok[ing] the harassment policy or discrimination policy on [Ross'] behalf after her termination." (Doc. 24-2, Deposition of Henry Fuller, at 253).
After the Red Book investigation concluded, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the decision to terminate Ross, and she was reinstated on August 18, 2009, with back pay, given next-level coaching, and transferred to another store. Futch was given next-level coaching "based on poor business judgment," but because he was already on Decision-Making Day coaching, he was terminated on August 7, 2009. (Doc. 24-5, Deposition of Peggy Blanton, at 38). Sharp, the Market Grocery Manager, became the Interim Store Manager shortly thereafter.
After Sharp became the Interim Store Manager, the Plaintiff angrily entered her office because he was concerned that Ross' investigation was going to "backfire" on him. (Doc. 24-6, Deposition of Janice Sharp, at 40-41). When asked if she knew that the Plaintiff was involved in Ross' investigation, Sharp answered, (Doc. 24-6, Deposition of Janice Sharp, at 41).
On August 13, 2009, the Plaintiff, Bostick, and a few Assistant Managers decided to throw a birthday party for Assistant Manager Antonio Ingram. Bostick offered to pay half the cost of a gift from her personal funds, but the Plaintiff said "he would take care of it." (Doc. 24-3, Deposition of Donna Bostick, at 23). Bostick was under the impression the Plaintiff would pay for the gift with his personal funds. Id. However,without prior approval, the Plaintiff purported to use the Associate Relations Account to purchase a watch for Ingram that cost $20.67 ($19.50 before taxes). "The Associate Relations Account (#972) is used to charge expenses for recognizing and appreciating Associates for exceptional accomplishments." (Doc. 24-29) (emphasis added). "Charges over $20 per month must be approved by the Market Manager." Id. Suggested uses for the Associate Relations Account include a "pizza party after exceeding budget or initiative goals for a quarter" and a "plaque for the Associate of the Year." Id.
An associate in the accounting department heard about the birthday gift and complained to Sharp, who was not at the store on the day of the birthday celebration. The Plaintiff told Sharp that throwing events to boost store morale was a normal practice while Futch was the Store Manager. Sharp did not believe throwing a birthday party for an Assistant Manager boosted employee morale, and she began a Red Book investigation.
On September 24, 2009, Sharp, along with two black Store Managers from other locations, communicated to the Plaintiff that he would receive next-level coaching, or termination, for violating the Associate Relations Account policy. The Plaintiff's exit interview says "Henry is being terminated for misconduct with coachings due to he purchased a $20 gift for an Assistant Manager and [illegible] by Associate relations and he had an active Decision Day and this was next level of coaching termination." (Doc. 24-22). The Plaintiff complained about the decision to Atchison and Blanton, but the decision to terminate him was not overturned.4
The Plaintiff brought this action on November 8, 2010. The Plaintiff argues his termination was discriminatory because he should not have been given Decision-Making Day coaching as a result of the pharmacy bathroom incident. The Plaintiff's main argument is that the watch cost only $19.50 before taxes and it was unreasonable to terminate him for spending 67 cents more than the Associate Relations Account policy allows. Thus, the Plaintiff focused on the amount spent as the basis for his termination. The Defendant followed the Plaintiff down this path, and claimed Sharp had reason to terminate the Plaintiff because he violated the Associate Relations Account policy by providing a $20.67 watch to Ingram.
However, this argument completely misses the mark. The Plaintiff's exit interview does not mention that the Plaintiff spent more than $20. Rather, it states "he purchased a $20 gift for an Assistant Manager." In her deposition, Sharp clearly and consistently testified that the Plaintiff was terminated for providing a gift to an individual without permission:
To continue reading
Request your trial