Henderson v. Lowes Home Ctrs.
| Decision Date | 15 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-2529 |
| Parties | DEREK HENDERSON v. LOWES HOME CENTERS, LLC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Record Document 29) filed by Defendant, Lowes Home Centers, LLC (“Lowes”), seeking dismissal of all claims filed against them by Plaintiff, Derek Henderson (“Henderson”). This Motion is unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
The present suit concerns the termination of Henderson from Lowes Store 428 in Shreveport, Louisiana in July 2020. See Record Document 1-2. As a result of his termination, Henderson filed an EEOC Charge on October 6, 2020. See id. On June 11, 2021, Henderson received a Dismissal and Notice of Rights from the EEOC. See Id. Henderson then filed suit in this Court on August 16, 2021.
The events leading up this suit are as follows. Henderson, an African American male, began working as a delivery driver for Lowes in September of 2018. See Record Document 29-8 at 1. At some point after the start of his employment, Henderson began working under supervisor Frank Messina (“Messina”), a then-sixty-year-old Caucasian male. See id. at 2. Throughout his EEOC charge and subsequent deposition testimony, Henderson identified Messina as the subject of most of his complaints, labelling him “arrogant” and stating that Messina “had something against” Henderson. See id.
The first incident between Henderson and Messina occurred in January 2019, when Henderson went to a customer's house to install a refrigerator. See id. Ultimately, Henderson left the customer's house without installing the refrigerator, and when Messina asked Henderson why he did not complete the job, Henderson “responded defensively” about a lack of training. See id. Messina reported the incident to Earl Howard (“Howard”), the assistant store manager, who told Henderson that he must do his job or his services would no longer be needed. See id. Henderson understood this conversation as a termination of employment and walked out of the store. See id. Henderson then filed a complaint with Lowes' Ethics Line for “wrongful termination.” See id. at 3. Henderson cited “retaliation of his report of [a prior] workplace injury” as the reason for the wrongful termination. See id. Notably, Henderson did not report any race or age discrimination complaints at this time. See id. After Lowes investigated the incident, Henderson was told to return to work, which he did. See id.
The next incident between Henderson and store management occurred in February of 2019, when a customer called to complain that Henderson had failed to hook up the ice machine on her refrigerator. See id. An assistant store manager, Michael Leon-Guerrero, called a meeting with Henderson to review his job description, which Messina attended. See id. Management testified that, at this meeting, Henderson “was insubordinate, refused to listen, and became angry.” See id. at 4. Messina also stated that “he had received similar reactions and responses from [Henderson] when trying to provide feedback in the past.” See id. On the day after the meeting with management, Henderson filed another complaint with the Ethics Line against Messina and others, describing their “bad attitude” towards Henderson and the “hostile work environment” they created. See id. Henderson did not report any race or age discrimination complaints at this time. See id. Lowes again investigated the complaint, but did not find any wrongdoing on management's part. See id.
In August of 2019, Henderson filed a third complaint with the Ethics Line concerning Messina, in which he asserted that Messina was constantly criticizing him, while treating other employees more “fairly or kindly.” See id. Again, Henderson did not report any race or age discrimination complaints at this time. See id. Lowes investigated Henderson's complaint and discovered that several members of management found Henderson to have “a challenging attitude, often refusing to perform certain job duties, despite numerous counseling opportunities.” See id. at 5.
In October of 2019, another incident occurred whereby Mary Clark (“Clark”), an Operations ASM, reported that Henderson told Clark he had yelled at the Overnight Support Manager, Diana White (“White”), threw a marker at her, and then later apologized. See id. White reported that Henderson “refused to assist her (saying, ‘I am going to quit this place') and later had a bad attitude, yelled profanities, and threw freight into the cart.” See id.
Henderson filed his fourth complaint with the Ethics Line in March of 2020, asserting that Messina failed to assist him promptly on a difficult refrigerator installation. See id. at 5-6. Henderson asserted that Messina gave him a difficult job assignment in retaliation, but Henderson did not report any race or age discrimination complaints at this time. See id. at 6.
In the months leading up to his termination, Henderson experienced two more confrontations with management. See id. First, Henderson came to the store to speak with Messina and another employee about wanting more hours. See id. When management suggested Henderson pick up shifts at the nearby Bossier location, Henderson understood this as a suggestion that he should transfer. See id. Second, Henderson came to the store and spoke with Store Manager, Ike McCullars (“McCullars”), Operations Manager, Rebecca Williams (“Williams”), and another party. See id. at 7. During this conversation, Williams testified that Henderson “pointed at McCullars angrily, made threatening comments, and raised his voice.” See id. Williams and McCullars both found Henderson's behavior unacceptable and thereafter requested approval from Associate Relations to terminate Henderson. See id. Osledire Robinson in Associate Relations approved the termination in July of 2020.
In the present Motion for Summary Judgment, Lowes argues that all of Henderson's claims must be dismissed, primarily because Lowes came forward with a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Henderson's termination. See Record Document 29 at 1. Lowes argues that even if Henderson established a prima facie case of race or age-based discrimination, he failed to present any evidence of pretext. See Id. Further, to the extent Henderson brings a workers' compensation retaliation claim, Lowes argues that such claim is prescribed. See id. at 2. As noted above, Henderson did not file an opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, which was filed in September of 2022. See id.
Summary judgment is proper pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Quality Infusion Care, Inc. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 628 F.3d 725, 728 (5th Cir. 2010). “A genuine issue of material fact exists when the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. “Rule 56[(a)] 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.” Patrick v. Ridge, 394 F.3d 311, 315 (5th Cir. 2004). If the movant demonstrates the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, “the nonmovant must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Gen. Universal Sys., Inc. v. Lee, 379 F.3d 131, 141 (5th Cir. 2004). Where critical evidence is so weak or tenuous on an essential fact that it could not support a judgment in favor of the nonmovant, then summary judgment should be granted. See Boudreaux v. Swift Transp. Co., 402 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 2005).
Additionally, Local Rule 56.1 requires the moving party to file a statement of material facts as to which it contends there is no genuine issue to be tried. All material facts set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party “will be deemed admitted, for purposes of the motion, unless controverted as required by this rule.” Local Rule 56.2. Here, Henderson has failed to oppose Lowes' Motion for Summary Judgment, including the Statement of Material Facts filed by Lowes therewith. See Record Document 29-9. Therefore, the material facts submitted by Lowes have not been controverted and are hereby deemed admitted.
a. Race discrimination claim
Lowes first argues that Henderson's race discrimination claim must be dismissed because even if Henderson could establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Lowes has come forward with a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his termination. See Record Document 29-8 at 9. Specifically, Lowes asserts that Henderson was fired because “he displayed a negative and hostile attitude throughout his employment, including in a meeting with his Store Manager and Operations Manager immediately prior to his termination.” See id. at 10. Further, Lowes states that “[d]uring his nearly two-year employment, Lowes received complaints from employees and managers alike about Plaintiff's attitude, temperament, and unwillingness to accept feedback about his job duties and performance.” See id.
Under the framework laid out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817 (1973), a claim of race-discrimination in the workplace has three basic evidentiary steps: (1) the plaintiff establishes an initial prima...
To continue reading
Request your trial