Hukman v. Sw. Airlines Co.

• Decision Date: 22 August 2019
• Docket Number: Case No.: 18-CV-1204-GPC-RBB
• Citation: Hukman v. Sw. Airlines Co., Case No.: 18-CV-1204-GPC-RBB (S.D. Cal. Aug 22, 2019)
• Parties: SHEIDA HUKMAN, pro se Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California

SHEIDA HUKMAN, pro sePlaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-1204-GPC-RBB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

August 22, 2019

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[ECF No. 42]

Before the Court is Southwest Airlines Co.'s ("Defendant" or "SWA")Motion for Summary Judgment.ECF No. 42.The motion has been fully briefed.On May 1, 2019, Sheida Hukman("Plaintiff"), who is appearing pro se, filed her first response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment.ECF No. 58.Plaintiff filed an amended response in opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment on May 6, 2019.ECF No. 53.Defendant filed a reply in support of the motion for summary judgment on July 24, 2019, ECF No. 57, and Plaintiff subsequently filed a second amended opposition to the motion for summary judgment.ECF No. 59.In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court allowed Plaintiff to file several amended oppositions and permitted a sur-reply from Defendant, which was lodged with the Court on August 5, 2019.ECF No. 63.¹

Pursuant to Civil LocalRule 7.1(d)(1), the Court finds the matter suitable for adjudication without oral argument.Upon consideration of the moving papers and for the reasons set forth below, the CourtGRANTSDefendant Southwest Airlines' motion for summary judgment in its entirety.

FACTUAL BACKGROUD²

A.Plaintiff's Employment and Job Duties with Defendant

PlaintiffSheida Hukman identifies as a Middle Eastern female of Kurdish descent from Iraq.ECF No. 1; Complaint.In May of 2016, Hukman applied to work for Defendant Southwest Airlines in the positions as a Customer Service Agent and Customer Service Supervisor.ECFNo. 57-2at 4;Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Facts.Subsequently, Plaintiff interviewed with Shawn Hulette for the Customer Service Agent position on May 20, 2016 and with recruiter Patricia Lyson, Chad Larimore, and Mr. Hulette for the Customer Service Supervisor position on May 27, 2016.

Plaintiff was not offered the role of Customer Service Supervisor.Instead, on June 30, 2016, Plaintiff received a contingent offer of employment with Defendant for a Full-Time Customer Service Agent position at the San Diego Airport.Id.Plaintiff accepted the offer on June 30, 2016 with a hire date of July 18, 2016.Id.On her hire date,Plaintiff acknowledged that her employment and position included a 180-day probationary period, which was intended to evaluate whether new employees fit in.Id.To graduate into the role of a Full-Time Customer Service Agent, Plaintiff was required to satisfactorily complete the 180-day probationary period, which included training and multiple evaluative steps throughout the process.Id.

During the probationary period, Plaintiff's employment was governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Southwest Airlines and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers("IAM"), AFL-CIO ("CBA").As a probationary employee, Plaintiff was expressly excluded from the CBA's grievance procedures in accordance with the bargaining agreement, which provided that "nothing in this Agreement shall extend grievance rights concerning discipline or discharge to an employee during his probationary period."Id.

In her role as a probationary Customer Service Agent, Plaintiff's job duties included: providing friendly service to and maintaining positive relationships with all internal and external Customers, working in a cooperative spirit to ensure the success of SWA, providing legendary Customer Service to people desiring to travel, use cargo, or baggage service by attending to their needs, greeting and handling Customers in a polite and friendly manner, dealing with mishandled Customers as a result of oversales, delayed or cancelled flights, lost, delayed, or damaged luggage and resolving such problems quickly and within guidelines established by SWA.Id;ECFNo. 42-5at 293-94;Ex. 13.Customer Service Agents were also required to possess the "ability to work well with others as part of a team, meet the public, and work under stressful situations."Id. at 146-47.Plaintiff also acknowledged receipt and review of SWA's Basic Principles of Conduct.Id. at 266-67;Ex. 23.According to the SWA Basic Principles of Conduct, Plaintiff could be penalized and terminated for violations of the prohibition against "[i]nsubordinate conduct or refusing to follow a work order or any act of insubordination."Id. at 266;Ex. 23.

B.Plaintiff's New Hire Training with Defendant

Upon her hiring, Plaintiff was provided with training at both the San Diego Airport and in Dallas, TX, where SWA is headquartered.ECF No. 42at 11;ECFNo. 42-5at 148-52.SWA employee training lasts approximately six weeks and includes classroom instruction at Southwestern Adventist University ("SWAU University"), followed by on the job training with a trainer, training at Defendant's Dallas headquarters, and additional follow-up training at the station.Id. at 11-12.During the training process, new hires receive training on topics that include employee policies, hazmat, station emergency programs, and customer service security measures.Id. at 12.It was common practice at SWA to first provide employees a week of training at SWAU University and then provide two weeks of "on-the-job" training with a trainer at the airport.Id.See alsoECFNo. 42-5at 499-500.

During her training at the San Diego Airport, which began on July 24, 2016, Plaintiff was assigned to trainer Michael Klatt.Id.By her own accord, Plaintiff contends that Mr. Klatt was a "really good" trainer "for me."Id.As part of the training process, Mr. Klatt provided training for new hires with respect to the "mechanisms of the computer, policies of the company, how to execute the customer service, the check-in process, and the customer service skills needed to facilitate [Southwest Airlines'] customers."Id.Mr. Klatt trained Plaintiff during her first week of work at the airport.On the second week of on-the-job training, Plaintiff worked at the ticket counter.Id.During the third week of Plaintiff's training, she was assigned as a "counter assist," a different portion of the training that is not linked with a trainer.Id.Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Klatt was also assigned to train another employee, who Plaintiff contends was Hispanic.ECFNo. 57-1, SWA Undisputed Statement of Factsat 11.

C.Plaintiff's Performance and Interpersonal Challenges at SWA

During her introductory period of contingent employment with Southwest Airlines, Hukman was involved in interpersonal disputes with other employees which were cited as a contributing factor for her termination.

i. The Uniform Incident

The first incident occurred fifty-seven days into Plaintiff's employment and related to Southwest's uniform ordering process.Id. at 12.New hires at SWA are typically given a set of standard uniform pieces which are ordered from Lands End.Id.In 2016, the standard set included six bottoms, six tops, two belts, and a jacket.Id.ECF No. 42-5.Additional items were to be ordered at the new hires' expense.Id.On September 12, 2016, Plaintiff ordered her uniform from SWA employee Taylor Farson, who entered the orders for new hires.When Plaintiff attempted to exchange and order several optional pieces via e-mail, Ms. Farson informed Plaintiff that she would be responsible for paying for the items, since Southwest would only pay for the required uniform pieces.ECFNo. 42-5at 134-36.In response, Plaintiff remarked to Ms. Farson, "If you don't want to order than then it's OK.I am not going to back and forth ... I will see you on Thursday to explain."Id.Hukman Depo.II, 366:17-367:13;Ex. 12.

Following the email interaction, Ms. Farson reported the issue to Chad Larimore and requested a meeting with Plaintiff and another manager.As a result, on September 15, 2016, Plaintiff, Ms. Farson, and Frank McGinley met and discussed the approved and allotted uniform quota outlined in the Ground Ops Employee Handbook.ECFNo. 42-5at 269;Ex. 32.At this time, Plaintiff raised concerns about her co-worker, Jules Alviz, claiming that Ms. Alviz threatened her by telling Plaintiff to be careful because Plaintiff was on probation.ECFNo. 42-1at 13;ECFNo. 42-3at 10-11.Plaintiff described this comment as "threatening' because Plaintiff believed that Ms. Alviz could terminate her employment.ECFNo. 42-3at 10-11.

During this conversation, Mr. Larimore informed Plaintiff that although Ms. Alviz was a senior agent, she could not terminate Plaintiff's employment.Id.Plaintiff proceeded to say that she thought Ms. Alviz was a "bad agent" and described Ms. Alviz as a poor performer.Id.Mr. Larimore informed Plaintiff that claims of threatening behavior are taken very seriously at SWA and encouraged Plaintiff to work harmoniously and professionally with Ms. Alviz.Id;LarimoreDecl., ¶ 10.

On September 16, 2016, another meeting took place between Plaintiff, Mr. Larimore, and IAM representative Lorena Todd to follow-up on the concerns that Plaintiff had voiced the day prior about Ms. Alviz.ECFNo. 42-3. at 10-11.Plaintiff proceeded to insist that the meeting with Ms. Farson took place because Ms. Alviz had turned Ms. Farson against Plaintiff.Plaintiff also "made it clear that she didn't care for Jules [Alviz] and that she felt that this whole incident came about only because Jules created it."Id.Plaintiff also repeatedly contended that Ms. Alviz was "a problem," a "bad agent," and "not a good person."Id.Because Plaintiff incorrectly believed that the conversation about the uniform understanding was a product of Ms. Alviz's doing, Mr. Larimore reiterated that the meeting that occurred with Ms. Farson "was set up only because of the uniform misunderstanding and not because of anything to do with [Ms. Alviz]."Id.Plaintiff did not agree and continued to assert that "this all came about because of [Ms. Alviz]."Id.

...