Johnson v. Bae Sys. Land & Armaments, L.P.
| Decision Date | 30 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-1790-D |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
| Parties | RICKIE L. JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAE SYSTEMS LAND & ARMAMENTS, L.P., Defendant. |
In this action by four African-American plaintiffs and one Hispanic plaintiff alleging claims for race discrimination and retaliation arising from a reduction in force ("RIF"), the court decides motions for summary judgment, to strike the testimony of two of plaintiffs' expert witnesses, and for severance or separate trials. For the reasons explained, the court grants in part and denies in part the motion for summary judgment and denies the motions to strike expert testimony and for severance or separate trials.
This is a lawsuit by five plaintiffs—Rickie Johnson ("Johnson"), Robert Allen ("Allen"), Levi Daniels ("Daniels"), Carl Whitley ("Whitley"), and Eduardo Dominguez ("Dominguez")—alleging that defendant BAE Systems Land & Armaments ("BAE") is liable for race discrimination, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act ("TCHRA"), Tex. Labor Code Ann. § 21.001 et seq. (West 2006), and forretaliation, in violation of Title VII and the TCHRA. All five plaintiffs assert race discrimination claims under § 1981, Title VII, and the TCHRA; three plaintiffs—Johnson, Whitley, and Dominguez—bring retaliation claims under Title VII and the TCHRA.
BAE designs, develops, and produces combat vehicles and munitions that are used by military and law enforcement.1 Under a contract with the U.S. Army, BAE provides on-site technical support for vehicles and munitions at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas. Plaintiffs were employees of BAE who worked at Fort Hood. Johnson, Allen, Daniels, and Whitley are African-American, and Dominguez is Hispanic. BAE maintains that it terminated plaintiffs' employment in April 2011 as part of a RIF.
At the time of their terminations, Allen, Daniels, and Whitley were Field Service Representatives ("FSRs"), while Johnson and Dominguez were Senior Field Service Representatives ("Sr. FSRs").2 The only other employee terminated during the RIF was James Cole ("Cole"), a Caucasian FSR. At the time of the RIF, there were twelve Sr. FSRs and twenty FSRs. The only two minority Sr. FSRs—Johnson and Dominguez—were terminated in the RIF, leaving ten Sr. FSRs, all of whom were Caucasian. Three of the four African-American FSRs were terminated (Allen, Daniels, and Whitley), leaving fourteenCaucasian FSRs, one African-American FSR, one Hispanic FSR, and one Asian FSR.
Earl Briggs ("Briggs") was in charge of the Fort Hood division and initially hired all of the plaintiffs, except Allen. He did not, however, directly supervise the FSRs or Sr. FSRs; that responsibility belonged to his Staff FSRs. Joe Joyce ("Joyce"), an African-American, was the Staff FSR responsible for supervising plaintiffs when they were hired, but Joyce retired in March 2010. Briggs replaced Joyce with George Clarkson ("Clarkson"), a Caucasian, who assumed Joyce's responsibility as Staff FSR. Clarkson shared this responsibility with Pete Atherholt ("Atherholt") until Atherholt retired in December 2011. As Staff FSRs during the period in question, Clarkson and Atherholt supervised plaintiffs' employment and reported directly to Briggs.
In 2009 Whitley made several complaints to Clarkson about the use of racially derogatory language by coworkers at BAE. In particular, he complained to Clarkson that an employee named Chris Trubee ("Trubee") told several African-American employees that he was "going to pull [his] whip out and make [them get] to work." D. App. 601. He also complained to Clarkson that a Caucasian contractor named Ray Swoda ("Swoda") repeatedly referred to a Hispanic employee as a "dumb-ass Mexican." Id. at 607. When Whitley complained about Swoda's comments, Clarkson smiled and walked away.
In September 2010 Johnson sent an email to Briggs, Clarkson, and Atherholt complaining about the use of racially derogatory language by several BAE employees and contractors who worked in the motor pool at Fort Hood. Around the same time, he also had a telephone conversation with Clarkson during which he complained that a contractor namedAdam Brewer ("Brewer") had used the "N word" while at work.
The following month Briggs determined that a RIF was necessary. He notified David Bautista ("Bautista") in BAE's Human Resources Department ("HR") and began working on the RIF. Under company policy, Briggs was required to draft a RIF business plan. A RIF business plan asks for certain information about a proposed RIF, including the reasons for the RIF, the anticipated dates of separation for those selected for termination, the positions likely to be eliminated, and the names of the employees likely to be laid off as a result of the RIF.
Clarkson and Atherholt provided Briggs with information that he included in the first RIF business plan, which was submitted on November 24, 2010 (the "November 2010 Plan"). The November 2010 Plan attributed the RIF to a shift in demand for M9 ACE vehicle support. The section explaining the reason for the proposed RIF stated, in pertinent part:
Ps. App. 485 (alteration added). The plan identified Allen, Dominguez, Johnson, Whitley, Cole, and Joseph Malong ("Malong") as employees likely to be considered for termination under the RIF.
Briggs, Clarkson, and Atherholt continued to work on the RIF until Briggs submitted the final RIF business plan on March 28, 2011 (the "March 2011 Plan"). The March 2011 Plan, like the November 2010 Plan, identified Allen, Dominguez, Johnson, Whitley, and Cole as employees likely to be laid off. But it removed Malong from the original list and added Daniels and Ronald DeShong ("DeShong"). The narrative section of the document (quoted above) remained substantially the same, but it was revised to state that the division now had seven, as opposed to six, "ACE FSRs on staff that are not qualified to support other systems or [contract] projects." Id. at 488 (alteration added).
Although the March 2011 Plan, like the November 2010 Plan, attributed the RIF to a reduction in demand for M9 ACE vehicle work, Daniels, who was added to the list, had never been considered an ACE FSR at any point during his tenure with BAE. Another BAE employee who was considered an ACE FSR was not included in the RIF. And DeShong, who is Caucasian, was not actually terminated despite being listed on the March 2011 Plan.
While the RIF was being debated, HR provided Briggs, Clarkson, and Atherholt several forms and spreadsheets to use during the process for deciding whom to select for termination under the RIF. Initially, Briggs, Clarkson, and Atherholt used a RIF selection form with three major categories: "Performance," "Criticality," and "Discipline." Each category had a number of subcategories and provided for the allotment of points on a 1-5 scale. Supervisors were expected to evaluate their subordinate employees for their abilities in each category, assign a numerical score for each category, and sum the scores. This sum would result in a total score, which would reflect an overall rating for the employee. After employees were rated, Briggs, Clarkson, and Atherholt were expected to sort the forms from lowest to highest overall rating. Employees with the lowest overall ratings were to be considered first for termination under the RIF.
Briggs, Clarkson, and Atherholt did not complete RIF selection forms for every FSR and Sr. FSR in the Fort Hood division. Instead, Briggs completed RIF selection forms only for the employees who had already been selected for termination and identified under the November 2010 Plan. Because Briggs did not directly supervise any of the FSRs or Sr. FSRs selected for termination, he relied on information provided by Clarkson and Atherholt when completing the forms.
In December 2010 HR replaced the RIF selection forms with a more comprehensive spreadsheet. In March 2011 another HR employee, Steven Routson ("Routson"), began assisting Briggs with the RIF. Routson provided Briggs with a modified spreadsheet template. Briggs revised the spreadsheet at least ten times during the period between Januaryand April 2011. By the end of the revision process, and although the spreadsheets included categories not covered by the RIF selection forms, the same six employees who had been previously identified for termination using the RIF selection forms were identified for termination on the final spreadsheet.
When Briggs initially received the spreadsheet template from Routson, the spreadsheet contained data that had been entered, or "pre-populated," using HR's software. But Briggs, Clarkson, and Atherholt created new definitions for several categories on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial