Grant v. Wesfam Rests., Inc.

• Decision Date: 31 January 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 5:10-cv-3457-TMP
• Parties: TYRONE C. GRANT, Plaintiff, v. WESFAM RESTAURANTS, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

TYRONE C. GRANT, Plaintiff,

v.WESFAM RESTAURANTS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 5:10-cv-3457-TMP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

DONE and ORDERED: January 31, 2013

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The matter before the court concerns the Motion for Summary Judgment and accompanying brief and evidentiary material (Doc. 57, 58, & 59) filed by defendants' Wesfam Restaurants, Inc. (hereafter "Wesfam"), David Oakley, Richard Wyckoff, and Thomas Dockery (hereafter collectively referred to as "defendants") on November 18, 2011. The motion is supported by evidence such as depositions, documents, and affidavits. Plaintiff Tyrone C. Grant (hereafter "plaintiff") responded in opposition to the motion (Doc. 71) on December 19, 2011. Defendants filed a reply (Doc. 82) on January 9, 2012. Having considered the briefs and evidentiary materials submitted by all parties, the court finds that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 57) is due to be and is hereby GRANTED.

In his response to defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 71), plaintiff makes several arguments regarding issue preclusion briefed in his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 54). The court has addressed these arguments by separate Memorandum Opinion and finds it is not necessary to fully do so here. The court has denied plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and does not find his arguments regarding issue preclusion/collateral estoppel persuasive.

In addition, defendants have filed two Motions to Strike (Doc. 76 & 81). The first motion pertains to evidence of a settlement offer made by defendants to plaintiff. The second motion pertains to portions of plaintiff's evidentiary materials that allegedly contain inadmissible hearsay and statements made in affidavits on subjects about which the declarant has no personal knowledge. As the court does not find the evidence defendants seek to strike substantial enough to alter its analysis of plaintiff's claims or defendants' rebuttal arguments, the court will moot these motions to strike by separate order.

I. Summary Judgment Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment is proper "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). The party seeking summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting former FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)). The movant can meet this burden by presenting evidence showing there is no dispute of material fact, or by showing that the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on which it bears the ultimate burden of proof. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. There is no requirement, however, "that the moving party support its motion with affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponent's claim." Id. at 323.

Once the moving party has met its burden, Rule 56 "requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories,and admissions of file,' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 324 (quoting former FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)). The nonmoving party need not present evidence in a form necessary for admission at trial; however, the nonmovant may not merely rest on its pleadings. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. "[T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Id. at 322.

After the nonmovant has properly responded to a motion for summary judgment, the court "shall" grant the motion if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). The substantive law will identify which facts are material and which are irrelevant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. at 248. "[T]he judge's function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 249. The court's guide is the same standard necessary to direct a verdict: "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." Id. at 251-52; see also Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 461 U.S. 731, 745 n.11 (1983). However, the nonmoving party "must do more than show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).

The evidence supporting a claim must be "substantial." Marcus v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 379, 382 (5th Cir. 1981). A mere scintilla of evidence is not enough to create a genuine issue of fact. Young v. City of Palm Bay, 358 F.3d 859, 860 (11th Cir. 2004); Kesinger exrel. Estate of Kesinger v. Herrington, 381 F.3d 1243, 1249-50 (11th Cir. 2004). If the nonmovant's evidence is so thoroughly discredited by the rest of the record and is evidence that no reasonable jury could accept, that evidence fails to establish the existence of a genuine issue of fact requiring a jury determination. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380-81 (2007) ("Respondent's version of events is so utterly discredited by the record that no reasonable jury could have believed him. The Court of Appeals should not have relied on such visible fiction; it should have reviewed the facts in the light depicted by the videotape."); Lewis v. City of West Palm Beach, Fla., 561 F.3d 1288, 1290 n. 3 (11th Cir. 2009). If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249 (citations omitted); see also Spence v. Zimmerman, 873 F.2d 256 (11th Cir. 1989).

Furthermore, the court must "view the evidence presented through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden" so that there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the nonmovant. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 254; Cottle v. Storer Communication, Inc., 849 F.2d 570, 575 (11th Cir. 1988). Nevertheless, credibility determinations, weighing of evidence, and the drawing of inferences from the facts are the function of the jury, and therefore the evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. The nonmovant need not be given the benefit of every inference but only of every reasonable inference. Brown v. City of Clewiston, 848 F.2d 1534, 1540 n.12 (11th Cir. 1988).

II. Facts Relevant to Summary Judgment

This civil action was filed by an African-American plaintiff for employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (hereafter "Title VII"); the Civil Rights Act of1991, 28 U.S.C. § 1981 (hereafter "§ 1981"); and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (hereafter "Equal Pay Act"). (Doc. 1 & 16). There are additional state law actions for abuse of process, defamation, civil conspiracy, and negligence. Id. There is also a federal civil conspiracy claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Id. Per this court's Order (Doc. 43) and Memorandum Opinion (Doc. 42) filed on May 20, 2011, which dismissed several claims pleaded by the plaintiff, the only claims remaining are the Title VII and § 1981 claims for employment discrimination; the Title VII and § 1981 claims for retaliation; the Equal Pay Act claim for retaliation; the abuse of process claim; the defamation claim; the state civil conspiracy to commit abuse of process and defamation claim; the federal civil conspiracy to commit abuse of process and defamation claim; and the negligence claim. The court will deal with each of these claims in turn.

Applying the standards for viewing and assessing the evidence explained above, the following facts appear to be undisputed or, if disputed, are stated in the light most favorable to the non-moving plaintiff.

Westfam owns and operates a number of Burger King franchise restaurants in north Alabama. Defendant Wyckoff was the President and Chief Operating Officer of Westfam, while defendant Dockery was the Vice President of Operations. Defendant Oakley was plaintiff's immediate supervisor, as the area manager. Plaintiff was employed by Westfam on two occasions, once for a year and half as a general manager of a restaurant prior to 2002, and the second time from November 2007 to December 2008. Plaintiff voluntarily left his employment on the first occasion, and then returned to employment with Wesfam in 2007.

In January 2008, plaintiff was promoted to the position of general manager at one of defendant Wesfam's Burger King franchise restaurants, Unit 4272, located at 1111 S.E. Jefferson Street, Athens, Alabama. As the general manager, plaintiff had overall managerial responsibility forall aspects of operating the business, including scheduling and cash-flow procedures. Plaintiff was assigned this particular restaurant in order for him to help alleviate excessive "voids" and other cash-flow problems at the location. Unit 4272 was experiencing a high number of "voids" even before plaintiff was assigned to the location. Plaintiff reported concerns about...