Johnson v. Gestamp Ala., LLC

Decision Date20 May 2013
Docket NumberNo. 2:12–cv–275–LSC.,2:12–cv–275–LSC.
Citation946 F.Supp.2d 1180
PartiesCurtis JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. GESTAMP ALABAMA, LLC, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Russell P. Parker, Russell P. Parker, Attorney at Law, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.

John J. Coleman, III, Marcel L. Debruge, Ronald Scott Williams, Ryan M. Aday, Burr & Forman LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

L. SCOTT COOGLER, District Judge.

I. Introduction

This is a case based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), and Alabama law. Curtis Johnson (Plaintiff) claims his former employer, Gestamp Alabama, LLC (Gestamp), discriminated against him on account of his race and age when it terminated his employment and denied him training opportunities, created a racially hostile work environment, retaliated against him for filing complaints, and breached either an express contract or an implied-in-fact contract. Following discovery, Gestamp filed a Motion for Summary Judgment that prompted the filing of several other motionsby both parties, all of which are ripe for consideration.

II. Facts 1

Plaintiff, an African–American male born on May 18, 1966, was hired by Gestamp on or about May 17, 2004. Gestamp is a stamping and welding facility, providing parts to Mercedes–Benz U.S. International (“MBUSI”) and other automotive manufacturers. Plaintiff was employed as a Team Leader for the Ultrasound Technology Group (“UT Group”) until his discharge. The UT Group was divided into first shift and second shift. Plaintiff was on second shift during his employment with Gestamp except for a two week period in 2008 when he was temporarily moved to first shift due to layoffs. Plaintiff's job entailed, among other things, supervising the Associates in the UT Group, making sure parts were up to specification and the welds were properly made, programming the UT Group computers, performing weld destructs, and inputting data into a computer during weld destructs.

Shortly after becoming Team Leader for second shift, Plaintiff discussed stacking his breaks with Stuart Norwood (“Norwood”), Plaintiff's Group Leader at the time he was hired, and Jorge Herrera (“Herrera”), Plaintiff's Manager at the time he was hired. Gestamp Associates receive a 20–minute paid break during their shift, and a separate, unpaid 30–minute meal period. Associates received another 10–minute break after working over nine hours, and another break after working over twelve hours. By stacking breaks, Plaintiff could take one long break rather than several short breaks. Both of his supervisors gave Plaintiff permission to stack his breaks under certain circumstances. By January of 2011, however, both Norwood and Herrera were no longer in a position to give Plaintiff permission to stack his breaks. Instead, Plaintiff reported to Maintenance Manager Mike Crawford (“Crawford”), a Caucasian male, from approximately January 2008 until November 2010, and then to Quality Manager John Nelson (“Nelson”), a Caucasian male, until his discharge.

During the course of his employment, Plaintiff complained on a regular basis to his supervisors about the lack of manpower on second shift and the need for more help. He would occasionally complain about the leadership and work ethic of first shift Team Leader Kevin Childers (“Childers”), a Caucasian male whom Plaintiff alleges is an “appropriate comparator” for purposes of his race discrimination claims. Plaintiff also complained about Childers playing on his computer. One time, while Plaintiff was trying to get Crawford to talk to the Associates on first shift about Childers, Crawford said, “I don't want to meet with them because they're going to throw Kevin [Childers] underneath the bus.” (Pla. Depo. 165:7–9.) Crawford then told Plaintiff he would look into Plaintiff's concerns. Plaintiff also complained to Norwood about Childers taking long smoke breaks. Nelson became aware that Childers took smoke breaks on his first day as Quality Manager.

At some point during the course of his employment, Plaintiff attempted to receive training in skills such as cut and etch, a job duty of first shift but not second shift. In fact, he was willing to come in on Saturdays to try and gain these skills that he thought were vital to his advancement in the company. He received some training in cut and etch, but could not continue because of his workload. It was also difficult for him to receive training because Childers, the Associate who would have to train him, was either never around or always busy when Plaintiff wanted to train.

In January of 2011, Gestamp's Human Resources Manager Marva Morgan (“Morgan”), an African–American female, began investigating the time during Plaintiff's shift that he spent away from his work area after an African–American Associate reported to Morgan that she had trouble locating Plaintiff. Morgan requested assistance from Nelson, who had Quality Engineer Kenny Green (“Green”) observe Plaintiff. Green reported that Plaintiff was away from his station for approximately one hour on January 27, 2011, and for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes on February 1, 2011. (Doc. 17–1 at 78, 80.)

Morgan then asked second shift's senior Group Leader, Darrick Stallworth (“Stallworth”), an African American male, to observe Plaintiff. Stallworth reported that Plaintiff was away from the entire Gestamp facility for over an hour on February 7, 2011. Stallworth was aided in his investigation by Group Leader Armen Weinrick (“Weinrick”), a Caucasian Male, who independently sent Morgan an e-mail essentially repeating what Stallworth reported. Morgan was informed by Stallworth, Nelson, and Plant Manager Jamie Mitchell (“Mitchell”) that none of them authorized Plaintiff's absence on February 7. On February 10, Morgan concluded from her investigation that Plaintiff violated a “Zero Tolerance” policy,2 but due to staffing concerns she had to delay any adverse employment decision until she could be certain that Plaintiff's job duties would be filled if she decided to terminate him.

Following her investigation, Morgan attempted to find a replacement for Plaintiff who could immediately and temporarily perform his job duties. She first attempted to hire Greg Lucas (“Lucas”), a Caucasian male whom was laid off prior to Plaintiff's termination and whom Plaintiff alleges is an “appropriate comparator” for purposes of his race discrimination claim. Lucas declined when he realized he would be replacing Plaintiff. She ended up settling with Kristopher Thompson (“Thompson”),a young Caucasian male whom Plaintiff alleges is an “appropriate comparator” for purposes of his discrimination claims. Thompson wanted to alter his schedule because he was taking classes at school, so he was transferred to the UT Group second shift while Plaintiff was still employed, with the intention of taking over Plaintiff's job duties once Plaintiff was terminated. Thompson had prior experience in the UT Group, and also as a Team Leader.

In the early morning of February 16, 2011, after Morgan's investigation but before any employment decision was made, a heated incident occurred between Plaintiff and Weinrick. Plaintiff believed that parts were not being delivered to the UT Group on time, so he went to talk to Weinrick and Jay Johnson (J. Johnson), another second shift Group Leader, about the importance of getting parts to the UT Group as soon as possible. About twenty minutes after this conversation, Weinrick approached the UT Group and accused its Associates of harassing one of his Associates. When Plaintiff intervened, Weinrick yelled at him, pounded his fists on a table, and threatened to write him up and have him fired.

Plaintiff sent an e-mail to Nelson and Morgan detailing the incident, and explained that he would talk to them the next day about it. The following day, Plaintiff attempted to inform Morgan of what he believed was Weinrick's race-based harassment. However, before he could do so, she told him to discuss the matter with his supervisor first before involving Human Resources, in accordance with Gestamp policy. About thirty or forty minutes later, Crawford 3 and Nelson came to talk with Plaintiff. He complained about Weinrick's behavior the previous night and alleged that Weinrick had been harassing Plaintiff. He also explained his belief that Weinrick was a racist. Crawford and Nelson told Plaintiff, “you need to let this go.” (Pla. Depo. 122:19–20.) Plaintiff also believes they threatened him by saying if he didn't let it go, people were going to lose their jobs.

A few weeks before his termination, Plaintiff had issues with clocking in and out, and reported these issues to Morgan. He also reported the issues to Childers and his supervisor at the time through e-mails. Plaintiff received pay adjustments when he found an error in his time worked. At the time he brought his clocking issues to Morgan's attention, he informed her that he was stacking breaks.

On March 28, 2011, Plaintiff was suspended in accordance with Getamp's termination procedures which require an Associate's suspension prior to a decision to terminate. After reviewing the results of her investigation, Morgan terminated Plaintiff's employment based upon his violation of Gestamp's “Zero Tolerance” policy.

Following Plaintiff's termination, Thompson performed Plaintiff's job duties. While working as second shift Team Leader, he trained new employee David Ward (“Ward”), a young African–American male whom Plaintiff alleges is an “appropriate comparator” for purposes of his age discrimination claim. In October of 2011, Thompson was transferred back to first shift, and Ward assumed the duties for second shift Team Leader of the UT Group.

Plaintiff filed the present action on January 26, 2012, alleging the following claims: (1) race...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • EarthCam, Inc. v. OxBlue Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • September 22, 2014
  • Carney v. City of Dothan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • January 28, 2016
  • Williams v. Guilford Technical Cmty. Coll. Bd. of Trs.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • July 13, 2015
  • Davis v. Int'l Paper Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • February 14, 2014
    ... ... 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), to show indirect evidence of discrimination. See Brown v. Ala. Dep't of Transp., 597 F.3d 1160, 1174, 1181 (11th Cir.2010). Under the McDonnell Douglas ... or possibilities for advancement.” Turlington, 135 F.3d at 1436; see also Johnson v. Gestamp Ala., LLC, 946 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1202 (N.D.Ala.2013) (applying Turlington 's materiality ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT