Hoogstra v. West Asset Management, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 August 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:05-CV-268.,4:05-CV-268. |
| Citation | 560 F.Supp.2d 515 |
| Parties | Richard HOOGSTRA, Plaintiff, v. WEST ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
Ronald R. Huff, Attorney at Law, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff.
Amy Lee Dashiell, Scott Douglass & McConnico, Austin, TX, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The following are pending before the court:
1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment and brief in support (docket entry # 24);
2. Plaintiffs objections to Defendant's summary judgment evidence and motion to strike (docket entry # 31);
3. Defendant's response to Plaintiffs objections to Defendant's summary judgment evidence and motion to strike (docket entry # 33);
4. Plaintiffs response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment (docket entry # 32); and
5. Defendant's reply in support of motion for summary judgment (docket entry # 34).
Having considered the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and the respective responsive briefing thereto, the court is of the opinion that the motion should be granted.
The Plaintiff objects to certain evidence presented by the Defendant and moves to; disregard the same. Specifically, the Plaintiff objects to the affidavits of Rhonda Lukie ("Lukie"), human resource manager at the Defendant's Sherman, Texas location, and Mark DeMoe ("DeMoe"), director of operations at the Defendant's Sherman, Texas location, because the affidavits are conclusory and based on hearsay and speculation.
First, the Plaintiff objects to the affidavits because they are based on hearsay. The Plaintiff argues that the affidavits contain references to conversations between the Plaintiff and Kevin Cloud ("Cloud"), a collection manager for the Defendant. Additionally, the Plaintiff argues that the affidavits contain references to conversations Lukie and DeMoe had with Cloud and Kristell Williams ("Williams"), one of Defendant's employees and the lead collector on the Plaintiffs team. The evidence in question was not presented for the truth of the matter asserted; rather, the evidence was submitted to show the Defendant's employees' state of mind when the Plaintiff was terminated. See Demon v. MeadWestvaco Corp., 2005 WL 2179116, *2 (N.D.Tex.2005); Wallace v. Texas Tech Univ., 80 F.3d 1042, 1048 n. 4 (5th Cir. 1996). As such, the statements are not hearsay.
Second, the Plaintiff objects to the affidavits because they are conclusory and speculative. In considering the Defendant's motion, the court disregarded any conclusory or speculative evidence. See Demon, 2005 WL 2179116 at *2. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs objections are OVERRULED and the motion to strike is DENIED (docket entry #31).
The Plaintiff began working as a collector for the Defendant, a debt collection company, in August 2001. Def. Mtn. for Summ. Judgment, Exh. C, ¶ 3. Upon commencement of his employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff was provided with a copy of the Defendant's Employee Manual. Id. at Exh. B (Pl.Dep.) 10:8-25 to 13:1-6; Exhs. B1, B2 and B3.1 The Plaintiff reviewed the policies, the relevant portions of which are provided as follows:
Prohibited Personal Relationships
Romantic or sexual relationships between managers and/or subordinate employees are strictly prohibited. These relationships create morale problems and frequently result in accusations that a person's superior position was used to obtain sexual favors.
For the purposes of this policy, a prohibited sexual relationship is defined as a sexual or romantic relationship between any:
• An officer, division manager, manager, manager trainee, or mentor and any employee within that person's chain of command or sphere of influence.
• A Company employee and an employee of a customer, subcontractor, client or vendor when the Company employee has the capacity to directly influence the business relationship.
If an employee suspects or knows of a violation of this policy, he or she should report it to his or her supervisor, Human Resources representative or any member of management. Further, any manager who receives a complaint alleging a violation of this policy or becomes aware of any activity that could be interpreted as a violation of this policy must immediately inform their manager. All complaints of violation of this policy will be investigated. When in the Company's opinion the facts substantiate the allegations, the Company will approach each party and appropriate remedial or disciplinary action will be taken. Upon continued violation of this policy, both parties may be disciplined, up to and including termination.
The Company does not seek to interfere with the personal lives of its employees but feels that the implementation of this policy is necessary for the maintenance of a professional atmosphere free from distractions, favoritism and improprieties.
This Disciplinary Actions Policy applies to all regular employees who have completed the Introductory Period.
This policy pertains to matters of conduct as well as the employee's competence. However, an employee who does not display satisfactory performance and accomplishment on the job may be dismissed, in certain cases, without resorting to the steps set forth in this policy.
Under normal circumstances, managers are expected to follow the procedure outlined below. There may be particular situations, however, in which the seriousness of the offense justifies the omission of one or more of the steps in the procedure. Likewise, there may be times when the Company may decide to repeat a disciplinary step.
The Company believes that discipline and/or performance issues can be resolved so as to get the employee to perform in an acceptable manner.
STEP 1—Identify the problem. The supervisor and the employee must meet to discuss the problem. The employee should acknowledge the issue and agree to work towards a resolution plan.
STEP 2—Establish a correction program. Once the problem has been defined, the supervisor and employee will work out a plan to correct the discipline or performance problem. The correction program will be written down with measurable results and a definite timetable for achieving those results.
STEP 3—Establish a consequence. The consequences for not following the correction program will be communicated in writing and acknowledged by the employee. This ensures that the employee realizes and understands the importance of achieving these results as well as what the consequences will be for failure to achieve them.
Pl. Resp., Exh. A (Pl.Dep., Exh. B-3, pp. 31, 51-52).
In 2002, the Plaintiff was promoted to the position of collection manager. Def. Mtn. for Summ. Judgment, Exh. C, ¶ 3. The Plaintiffs direct supervisor was DeMoe. Def. Mtn. for Summ. Judgment, Exh. D, ¶ 3. As a collection manager, the Plaintiff supervised approximately ten (10) collectors. Id. at ¶ 4. Patricia Blackwell ("Blackwell") was one of the collectors that the Plaintiff supervised. Def. Mtn. for Summ. Judgment, Exh. B (Pl.Dep.) 9:9-16. Blackwell began working for the Defendant in April 2005 as a big balance collector. Pl. Resp., Exh. E.
In the same month that Blackwell began working for the Defendant, Cloud reported to Lukie and DeMoe that the Plaintiff had commented to him (Cloud) that the Plaintiff was involved in a relationship with Blackwell. Def. Mtn. for Summ. Judgment, Exh. C, ¶ 4; Exh. E (Cloud Dep.) 22:2-25 to 28:1-16, 32:9-25 to 33:1-4. Based on Cloud's report, Lukie and DeMoe subsequently questioned the Plaintiff about his alleged relationship with Blackwell. Def. Mtn. for Summ. Judgment, Exh. C, ¶ 4; Exh. D, ¶ 5. The Plaintiff denied the existence of any relationship with Blackwell. Id. As such, Lukie and DeMoe concluded that there was insufficient information to make a determination about the alleged relationship and took no action. Id.
Thereafter, at approximately 6:30 p.m. on May 19, 2005, Lukie noticed the Plaintiff and Blackwell together in the Plaintiffs truck at a stoplight in Denison, Texas. Def. Mtn. for Summ. Judgment, Exh. C, ¶ 5. Lukie notified DeMoe via voicemail that evening of her sighting. Id. at Exh. D, ¶ 6. On May 20, 2005, Lukie and DeMoe questioned Cloud again, seeking any additional information regarding the possible relationship between the Plaintiff and Blackwell. Def. Mtn. for Summ. Judgment, Exh. C, ¶ 5; Exh. D, ¶ 6. Cloud informed Lukie and DeMoe that the Plaintiff had told him that the Plaintiff and Blackwell were "sleeping together" and "living together." Id. Cloud further advised that Williams might have additional information on the alleged relationship. Id. Upon questioning Williams, Lukie and DeMoe learned that Blackwell had informed Williams that Blackwell had previously spent the night at the Plaintiffs house. Id. Additionally, Williams stated that the Plaintiff had previously asked her to take time off from work to retrieve Blackwell from the airport. Id.
With this information, Lukie and DeMoe approached Blackwell. Def. Mtn. for Summ. Judgment, Exh. C, ¶ 6; Exh. D, ¶ 7. Lukie and DeMoe asked Blackwell if she was in a relationship with the Plaintiff and whether she had been in the Plaintiffs truck the previous evening. Id.; Pl. Resp., Exh. E. Blackwell denied both allegations. Id. Blackwell avers that she did not respond truthfully to the question about her being in the Plaintiffs truck because she was concerned that the Plaintiff would get into trouble for giving her a ride. Pl. Reap., Exh. E. Given that Lukie saw Blackwell in the Plaintiffs truck, Blackwell was terminated. Def. Mtn. for Summ. Judgment, Exh. C, ¶ 6; Exh. D, ¶ 7; Pl. Resp., Exh. E. Blackwell avers that she was not in a relationship with the Plaintiff while she was employed by the Defendant. Pl. Resp., Exh. E.
Lukie and DeMoe then questioned the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff admitted that Blackwell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v. Sanderson Farms, Inc.
...had merit. Jones v. Continental Airlines, No. H-04-2246, 2005 WL 2233619, *4 (S.D. Tex. 2005); Hoogstra v. West Asset Management, Inc., 560 F. Supp. 2d 515, 524 (E.D. Tex. 2006). Plaintiff has failed to present additional evidence to show that Sanderson Farms knew or suspected that the empl......
-
Clark v. Sw. Airlines Co.
...statute does not exempt an employee from violations of company work rules or job requirements."); Hoogstra v. W. Asset Mgmt., Inc., 560 F. Supp. 2d 515, 523-24 (E.D. Tex. 2006) (quoting Jarjoura for the proposition that "timing alone is not enough to support retaliation when evidence shows ......
-
Chapter § 1-49 29 CFR § 825.220. Protection for Employees Who Request Leave or Otherwise Assert FMLA Rights
...defendant's good faith belief that he violated its policy against personal relationships at work). • Hoogstra v. W. Asset Mgmt., Inc., 560 F. Supp. 2d 515 (E.D. Tex. 2006) (adopting honest belief rationale in an FMLA case, the court rejected the argument that summary judgment should be deni......