Guyette v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:17-CV-4793-MHC-LTW |
| Citation | 403 F.Supp.3d 1349 |
| Parties | Catherine L. GUYETTE, Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
This action is before the Court on the Final Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker ("R&R") [Doc. 21] recommending that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14] be granted. The Order for Service of the R&R [Doc. 22] provided notice that, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties were authorized to file objections within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of that Order. In lieu of objections, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Consent to Entry of Summary Judgment indicating that she does not object to the R&R and "consents to the entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Charter Communications, Inc. pursuant to the R&R." Notice of Consent to Entry of Summ. J. [Doc. 23].
Absent objection, the district court judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge," 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Based upon the absence of objections to the R&R, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the R&R for plain error. See United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983). The Court finds no plain error and that the R&R is supported by law.
The Court APPROVES AND ADOPTS the Final Report and Recommendation [Doc. 21] as the judgment of the Court. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14] is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of August, 2019.
This case is currently before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter" or "Defendant"). (Doc. 14). For the reasons explained below, this Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED . (Doc. 14).
Plaintiff Catherine Guyette ("Plaintiff") alleges Charter terminated her employment on the basis of race in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 (" Section 1981"), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"). (Compl., Doc. 1, at 1-2). Charter seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's Title VII claim alleging it is untimely. (Doc. 14-1, at 14-15). Charter also contends that Plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case of race discrimination, as she cannot show she was qualified to do the job or that she was treated differently from similarly-situated comparators. (Id. at 16-19). Even if Plaintiff could make out a prima facie case of race discrimination, Charter argues Plaintiff has not shown that its legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating her was pretextual. (Id. at 20-25).
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1
A. Plaintiff's Employment
Charter initially hired Plaintiff as a Direct Sales Representative ("DSR") in November 2012 and then promoted her to a Direct Sales Supervisor ("DSS") within her first year of employment. (DSMF ¶ 5; Deposition of Plaintiff ("Pl.'s Dep."), Doc. 15-1, at 13:20-14:11, 60:1-10, Ex. 9). As a DSS, Plaintiff supervised teams of DSRs who went door to door selling Charter's services in Georgia. (DSMF ¶ 8). Plaintiff had eight DSRs under her supervision. (Pl.'s Dep. at 83:17-84:15). Robin Garland, who is Caucasian, was Plaintiff's manager from 2013 until 2015. (Pl.'s Dep. at 65:15-20, 66:14-15). Malcom Brooks, who is African American, then took over as Plaintiff's manager until her termination. (PSMF ¶ 2; Pl.'s Dep. at 65:21-22, 66:18-19, 68:10-12; Declaration of Stacia Erway ("Erway Decl."), Doc. 14-4, ¶ 13).
A. Roku Project Investigation
In early 2016, Plaintiff's team participated in a special project selling Roku streaming devices (the "Roku Project"). (DSMF ¶ 10). The Roku Project began on February 22, 2016. (Pl.'s Dep. at 96:23-25). The participating teams and their supervisors would receive commissions based on the number of customers they signed up for Roku services. (DSMF ¶ 12). Plaintiff's manager, Brooks, was on vacation at the beginning of the Roku Project, so Garland served as Plaintiff's acting manager during the Roku Project. (Pl.'s Dep. at 86:1-10, 93:8-9, 133:12-17).
Charter stopped the Roku Project after two or three weeks. (Pl.'s Dep. at 85:7-12). Not long after the Roku Project began, Charter began to suspect that some DSRs were fraudulently inflating their sales by signing customers up for Roku services without their authorization. (DSMF ¶ 13). Initially, Garland instructed the DSSs, including Plaintiff, to conduct in-field audits by contacting customers in person. (Garland Decl. ¶ 12). After receiving numerous customer complaints, Charter initiated a confidential Human Resources ("HR") investigation into the Roku Project. (DSMF ¶ 14, 50; Garland Decl. ¶ 15). The findings of the investigation, as they pertained to Plaintiff, were compiled in an Incident Investigation Report ("Report"). (Erway Decl. ¶ 17, Ex. 5).
As part of the investigation, Charter interviewed Plaintiff's team of DSRs.2 (DSMF ¶ 18). Brooks and Stacia Erway of Human Resources, who is Caucasian, conducted the interviews. (Erway Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. 5, p. 7-8; Pl.'s Dep. at 139:16-25). DSR Kiara Pauldo, who is African-American, reported that Plaintiff told her that she was part of the investigation related to the Roku Project. (Erway Decl. Ex. 5, p. 7; Pl.'s Dep. at 84:18-19). Pauldo alleged that Plaintiff gave her a list of six questions that leadership might ask her during the investigation and sent her a text message coaching her on what to say. (Erway Decl. Ex. 5, p. 7). Pauldo provided the text message:
(Id. p. 8). DSR Kerel Webley, who is African-American, also reported that Plaintiff discussed the pending investigation with him and guided him on how he should answer questions. (Erway Decl. Ex. 5, p. 8; Pl.'s Dep. at 84: 24-25).
DSR Casey Pilon, who is Caucasian, stated that Plaintiff provided "little direction" about the Roku Project. (Erway Decl. Ex. 5, p. 7; Pl.'s Dep. at 85:5-6). DSR Pauldo reported that Plaintiff instructed the DSRs to tell customers that they had been "pre-selected" for the Roku Service, but it was unclear what the DSRs were supposed to sell. (Erway Decl. Ex. 5, p. 8). DSR Pauldo also alleged she never saw the PowerPoint presentation about the Roku Project. (Id. ). According to Pauldo, Plaintiff said she would have a one-on-one conversation with him if there were any issues, which never happened although Pauldo was suspected of four fraudulent sales. (Id.; Erway Decl. ¶ 21 n.1). Similarly, DSR Pilon reported that Plaintiff told him that she was auditing his work but did not bring any concerns to his attention even though Pilon was suspected of five fraudulent sales. (Erway Decl. Ex. 5, p. 7). DSR Anthony Hicks, who is African-American, reported that Plaintiff failed to provide guidance when he approached her with concerns, instead Plaintiff pushed him to keep selling. (Erway Decl. Ex. 5, p. 7; Pl.'s Dep. at 85:3-4). DSR Hicks also stated that Plaintiff told him not to contact Brooks or escalate any concerns to leadership. (Id. ). DSR Webley also reported that Plaintiff told him not to contact Brooks about anything. (Erway Decl. Ex. 5, p. 8).
As part of the investigation, Brooks, Erway, and Lori Lucas of Human Resources interviewed Plaintiff. (Erway Decl. ¶ 22, Ex. 5, pp. 9-10). According to the Report, Plaintiff admitted that she did not provide her team with the attachments containing the PowerPoint or the Roku login information because she felt it was not helpful. (Erway Decl. Ex. 5, p. 9). In her deposition, however, Plaintiff claimed that she gave her team the PowerPoint and all other documents she was asked to give them. (Pl.'s Dep. at 83:2-6). The Report also includes a copy of an email Plaintiff sent to her team on February 29, 2016. (Erway Decl. Ex. 5, p. 3). In the email, Plaintiff states that, (Id. ). Plaintiff then wrote, (Id. ).
Garland states that during the interviews she conducted, which were independent from the HR interviews, neither Hicks nor Pauldo reported improper supervision or insufficient training. (Garland Decl. ¶ 20). According to Garland, the employees making statements critical of Plaintiff were facing termination. (Garland Decl. ¶ 24). Garland also stated that she believed that the DSRs were adequately trained during a conference call that covered all the information and gave DSRs the opportunity to ask questions. (Garland Decl. ¶ 8).
Plaintiff received emails on March 1, 2016, March 4, 2016, and March 10, 2016, with reports that customers were complaining about being signed up for Roku services without their authorization. (Erway Decl. Ex. 5, pp. 4-7). Charter could not find any record of Plaintiff escalating the emails to management before Brooks received one of the emails directly on March 10, 2016. (Erway Decl. ¶ 24, Ex. 5, p. 6). Plaintiff printed copies of all the emails she forwarded to Garland regarding the alleged fraud but did not provide any emails she forwarded to leadership other than the one she forwarded to Garland on the evening of March 10, 2016. (Pl.'s Dep. 96:3-98:17, 99:11-19, 100:4-14, 144:15-18, Ex. 8).
Plaintiff stated in her HR interview that she did not contact Brooks3 about the Roku Project issues because she was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lisenby v. Crenshaw Cnty.
... ... Platner v. Cash & Thomas Contractors, Inc., 908 ... F.2d 902, 905 (11th Cir. 1990) (stating that basis for ... was not based on discrimination. See Guyette v. Charter ... Commc'ns, Inc., 403 F.Supp.3d 1349, 1369 (N.D.Ga ... ...
-
Testimonial Evidence
...recommendation based on race, but instead relied on conclusory allegations of racial animus. Guyette v. Charter Communications, Inc. , 403 F.Supp.3d 1349 (N.D. Ga. 2019). See also Studdard v. Alabama Agricultural & Mechanical University , 2019 WL 2185239 (N.D. Ala. May 21, 2019) (independen......