Johnson v. Salt Lake City Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 03 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:19-cv-00743-JNP |
| Citation | 499 F.Supp.3d 1126 |
| Parties | Justin JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT; Tiffany Sandberg; Melissa Ford; Michael Nemelka; Katherine Kennedy ; Nate Salazar; Samuel Hanson ; and Kristi Swett, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Russell T. Monahan, Cook & Monahan LLC, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff.
Joseph T. Adams, Utah Attorney General's Office (160-6-140856), Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Before the court is Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Justin Johnson ("Plaintiff" or "Johnson") has brought hostile work environment and retaliation claims against Defendants under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq. ("Title VII"), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 626 et. seq. ("ADEA"). The individual Defendants, Tiffany Sandberg, Melissa Ford, Michael Nemelka, Katherine Kennedy, Nate Salazar, Samuel Hanson, and Kristi Swett, move to dismiss the claims against them as unnecessary and superfluous. Salt Lake City School District (the "School District" or "District") moves to dismiss the claims against it under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(c). For the reasons to follow, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ Motion.
Johnson was employed by the School District as a groundskeeper beginning in December 2015. He reached "career status" in July 2016. In March 2017, he was named Interim Lead Groundskeeper, and in October 2017, the "interim" label was removed, making him Lead Groundskeeper. Until June 2017, Burt Still ("Still") was Johnson's direct supervisor, after which time Chris Miller ("Miller") was Johnson's direct supervisor. Miller's supervisor was Curtis Barnett ("Barnett").
Johnson regularly met with Barnett to discuss the work performance of the groundskeeping crews. During these meetings, Barnett requested that Johnson provide reasons to "write up" two other employees, Ray Seerles ("Seerles") and Gus Bablous ("Bablous"). Both were over the age of 40 and nearing retirement. Barnett indicated that Seerles and Bablous were "too old and slow and that he wanted to get rid of them." ECF No. 2 ¶ 19. Johnson told Barnett he disagreed with this assessment.
Johnson told his direct supervisor at the time, Still, about Barnett's request. Still informed Johnson that Barnett was also pressuring him to write up Seerles and Bablous. When Miller became Johnson's direct supervisor, he likewise instructed Johnson to write up Seerles and Bablous and informed Johnson that this instruction came from Barnett. Johnson told Miller he disagreed with targeting Seerles and Bablous.
Nonetheless, Miller continued to pressure Johnson to give reasons to discipline Seerles and Bablous through the fall and early winter of 2017. Miller's pressure was "constant" and always aimed at Seerles and Bablous, never at other employees. In January or early February 2018, Miller ordered Johnson to provide reasons to write up Seerles and Bablous or Johnson would be subject to discipline. Johnson refused Miller's demand.
Around the same time, in late January 2018, Johnson and a female co-worker, Chay Olsen ("Olsen"), were clocking out. As they were clocking out, Barnett walked by and remarked to Olsen that he had been watching her all day on the security cameras. Once Johnson and Olsen were outside, Olsen told Johnson that Barnett's comment was "creepy." A short time later, on February 5, 2018, Olsen was visibly upset, to the point of crying, about Barnett's comment. She told Johnson that knowing Barnett was watching her all day made her uncomfortable. Johnson agreed that Barnett's comment was inappropriate, and he suggested that she speak to Human Resources ("H.R."). Johnson decided, however, to meet with H.R. himself, in order to discuss Barnett's previous request to fabricate reasons to discipline Seerles and Bablous, in addition to Barnett's inappropriate comment to Olsen.
Shortly thereafter, Johnson called H.R. Specialist Amy O'Connor ("O'Connor"). He expressed his concerns about Barnett, and O'Connor scheduled a meeting on February 15, 2018 to discuss Johnson's concerns in more depth. She indicated that Johnson's complaints would be kept confidential until "an investigation could be conducted." Shortly after this call, on February 12, 2018, Johnson received a letter indicating that he was "no longer a career status employee" and had been reduced to "provisional status" as of October 16, 2017. The letter was dated February 6, 2018. Johnson decided to contact Sam Mills, his representative with the Utah Public Employees Association, to request that he attend the upcoming meeting with O'Connor.
O'Connor postponed the meeting at least three times. On March 5, 2018, Johnson received a written reprimand from Miller. Johnson then demanded a meeting with O'Connor, which took place on March 8, 2018. He raised his concerns about Barnett's comments to Olsen and Barnett's targeting of older employees for termination. O'Connor indicated that she would speak to Barnett but did not indicate that she would conduct an investigation. Johnson's direct supervisor, Miller, was aware that Johnson had met with O'Connor, as Johnson had informed him the about the meeting.
Johnson scheduled another meeting with O'Connor for April 5, 2018 in order to discuss his concerns about retaliation. O'Connor postponed this meeting as well, but shortly after the date on which the meeting would have been held, one of Johnson's coworkers called Johnson to give him a "heads up" that the coworker "had the impression that Barnett wanted to terminate" Johnson. ECF No. 2 ¶ 54.
On April 16, 2018, Johnson received a second reprimand letter, dated April 3, 2018. Johnson eventually met with O'Connor again on April 26, 2018. On April 30, 2018, he received a letter from Ricardo Zubiate ("Zubiate") indicating that his contract would not be renewed. His employment under the contract was set to end on June 30, 2018. Johnson alleges that the non-renewal of his contract violated School District policy.
After receiving the letter from Zubiate, Johnson filed an internal complaint with the District on May 11, 2018, alleging retaliation. After filing the complaint, Johnson had several contacts with the director of H.R. for the District, Brian Garritson ("Garritson"). Johnson alleges that on at least two of these occasions, Garritson behaved aggressively and belligerently toward him. In anticipation of his June 30 termination date, Johnson resigned from his position on June 20, 2018.
After failing to hear from the School District for some time, Johnson filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on August 7, 2018. See ECF No. 26-1. He filled out and submitted EEOC Form 5, which includes boxes one may check to indicate the nature of the discrimination. Johnson checked only the "Retaliation" box. The form also contains a space for complainants to set forth their allegations. Because the allegations in the charge are critical to this Motion, the court includes them verbatim here:
The School District responded to the EEOC complaint on September 12, 2018. The Department of Justice ("D.O.J.") issued Johnson a "right-to-sue" letter on July 30, 2019. The letter indicated that because over 180 days had passed since his filing with the EEOC, and because the D.O.J. had not filed suit, Johnson had the right to "institute a civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ... against the [School District]." ECF No. 2-1 at 1.
Johnson filed suit, alleging that the District created a hostile work environment and retaliated against him for engaging in protected opposition to discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA.
In his Complaint, Johnson brought claims against all of the members of the school board, writing that each "is sued as an individual and in his [or her] official capacity." ECF No. 2 at 2–3. Defendants respond that claims against individuals in their personal capacities under Title VII and the ADA are inappropriate. Likewise, they argue that where the employer is...
To continue reading
Request your trial