Labrecque v. Mabus
| Decision Date | 16 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | 2:14-cv-00357-JAW |
| Parties | JOHN G. LABRECQUE, Plaintiff, v. RAY MABUS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
John LaBrecque is an employee at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. He was promoted to a supervisory position in 2011 shortly after he complained to the Shipyard's Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) office about age discrimination. Mr. LaBrecque claims that ever since this complaint and promotion, he has been subjected to retaliation and a hostile work environment. The Navy moves for summary judgment on all of Mr. LaBrecque's claims.
After winnowing through a hotly contested record, the Court determines that Mr. LaBrecque failed to demonstrate any disputes of material fact that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that any of the adverse actions taken against him were causally connected to his EEO complaints. Mr. LaBrecque also fails to produce sufficient facts from which a reasonable jury could conclude there was severe, pervasive harassment on the basis of age giving rise to a hostile work environment. The Court grants the Navy's motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
On September 10, 2014, John LaBrecque filed a complaint in this Court against Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, containing one count of retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. Compl. and Demand for Trial by Jury (ECF No. 1). On January 26, 2015, Mr. LaBrecque moved to amend his complaint, adding a retaliation claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq., as well as a hostile work environment claim under Title VII. Pl.'s Mot. to Amend the Compl. (ECF No. 9). The Navy filed a partial opposition to the motion to amend the complaint submitting that the Court should reject Counts II and III of the proposed First Amended Complaint, alleging gender-based hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII, because Mr. LaBrecque did not exhaust his administrative remedies. Def.'s Partial Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. to Amend the Compl. (ECF No. 10). Mr. LaBrecque replied on March 3, 2015. Pl.'s Reply in Supp. of His Mot. to Amend the Compl. (ECF No. 14). On July 21, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a memorandum decision granting the motion to amend with respect to the addition of the claim under the ADEA but denying the motion with respect to the claims for hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII. Mem. Decision on Mot. to Amend (ECF No. 17). Mr. LaBrecque filed the First Amended Complaint on July 27, 2015 alleging the sole count of retaliation under the ADEA. Pl.'s Am. Compl. and Demand for Trial by Jury (ECF No. 19) (Am. Compl.).
After the completion of discovery, the Court held a Local Rule 56(h) pre-filing conference on March 4, 2016. Min. Entry (ECF No. 45). On April 15, 2016, the parties filed a joint record and joint factual stipulations. Joint Record (ECF No. 49) (J.R.); Joint Factual Stips. (ECF No. 50) (Stips.). On April 25, 2016, the Navy filed a motion for summary judgment and a statement of undisputed material facts. Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 51) (Def.'s Mot.); Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 52) (DSMF). On June 23, 2016, Mr. LaBrecque filed an opposition to the Navy's motion for summary judgment, a responsive statement of material facts, and an additional set of material facts. Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 68) (Pl.'s Opp'n); Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Pl.'s Statement of Additional Material Facts at 1-25 (ECF No. 69) (PRDSMF); id. at 25-32 (PSAMF). On July 11, 2016, the Navy filed a reply brief and a reply statement of facts. Def.'s Reply Brief in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 72) (Def.'s Reply); Def.'s Resps. to Pl.'s Statement of Additional Material Facts (ECF No. 73) (DRPSAMF).
A. Organization of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard & John G. LaBrecque's Position
At the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (Shipyard), located in Kittery, Maine, the Department of the Navy (the Navy) overhauls, repairs, and modernizes nuclear submarines. Stips. ¶ 1; DSMF ¶ 1; PRDSMF ¶ 1. When a submarine is undergoingwork at the Shipyard, it is frequently referred to as a project and/or identified by its name or hull number. Id.
John LaBrecque began working at the Shipyard in November 1989. PSAMF ¶ 1; DRPSAMF ¶ 1. He consistently received positive performance reviews and feedback from his supervisors and peers, resulting in a promotion in May of 1999 to Painter, and again in September 2004 to Painter Leader (also referred to as a Worker Leader). Stips. ¶ 7; PSAMF ¶ 1; DRPSAMF ¶ 1. At all times relevant to this litigation, Mr. LaBrecque has been employed at the Shipyard, at times as a WL-4102-09 Painter Leader and at times as a WS-4102-09 Painter Supervisor, and assigned to an organizational unit called the Painting and Blasting Shop (Shop 71). Stips. ¶ 2; DSMF ¶ 2; PRDSMF ¶ 2. The Painting and Blasting Shop is part of a larger organizational unit called the Coating and Coverings Code (Code 970). Id. Code 970 is, in turn, part of the still larger Production Resources Department (Code 900). Id.
At all times relevant to this litigation, Code 970 has been managed by a GS-14 Superintendent, who is assisted by several GS-13 managers, including at least one Operations Manager. DSMF ¶ 6; PRDSMF ¶ 6. The Shop to which Mr. LaBrecque was assigned, Shop 71, was managed by a General Foreman. DSMF ¶ 7; PRDSMF ¶ 7. The General Foreman is a GS-12 management employee who reports directly to the Code 970 Operations Manager. Id. The Code 970 Superintendent was the General Foreman's second-line supervisor. Id.
frequently referred to as mechanics or painter/blasters. Stips. ¶ 4; DSMF ¶ 8; PRDSMF ¶ 8. These employees may be WG-05, WG-07, and WG-09 helpers, apprentices, and journeymen whose trade is marine painting and blasting. Id. Their work includes the application of various coatings on interior and exterior surfaces, tanks, and voids aboard submarines. Id. In addition to work performed aboard submarines, work is also performed off the submarines, which is referred to as other productive work or overhead work. Id.
Crews of painter/blaster mechanics, led by Shop 71 Painter Supervisors, can be assigned as needed to perform work on various submarines undergoing overhaul, repair, and modernization work. Stips. ¶ 5; DSMF ¶ 9; PRDSMF ¶ 9. The number of submarines at the Shipyard varies, but it is common for there to be three at any given time. Id. The number of painter/blaster crews assigned to each submarine, as well as the shifts to which they are assigned, also varies according to production needs. Id.
In the 2011/2012 timeframe, Zone Managers provided Painter Supervisors with daily direction concerning the work to be completed on a project during their shift. DSMF ¶ 11; PRDSMF ¶ 11. Over the course of a year, a Painter Supervisor typically worked on multiple projects, and received direction from several different Zone Managers. Id. Because Painter Supervisors received direction from multiple managers over the course of the year in 2011 and 2012, the Shop 71 General Foreman was given the task of mentoring and completing the performance evaluations of allShop 71 Painter Supervisors in Code 970. Id.2 Prior to 2011, Project Managers, not General Foremen, completed the evaluations. Id. General Foremen are rarely on the projects or the boats. Id.
The timely planning and execution of work on specific projects are critical to the success of a project, each of which is governed by a project-specific budget that is carefully monitored by the Superintendent of Code 970 and others in management above him. DSMF ¶ 12; PRDSMF ¶ 12.3 The tasks assigned to particular crews on any given day are usually communicated from the Zone Managers to the Supervisors at the beginning of a day shift. DSMF ¶ 13; PRDSMF ¶ 13. The day-shift ZoneManager and first-shift Supervisor provide direction to the second-shift Zone Manager and second-shift Supervisor during shift turnover. Id. The Zone Managers assign priorities for work to be completed. Id.4 At the conclusion of the second and/or third shift, the Supervisor of the crew usually completes a written turnover sheet, which describes what work was completed, and what, if any, work the crew could not complete during the shift. Id.
In 2009, despite his hard work and seniority, Mr. LaBrecque was denied a promotion to Supervisor. Stips. ¶ 8; PSAMF ¶ 2; DRPSAMF ¶ 2. Instead, the positions went to four other Worker Leaders who were all younger and less experienced than him. PSAMF ¶ 2; DRPSAMF ¶ 2.5 After bringing this issue to hisshop head's attention, Mr. LaBrecque was told that he would get the next Supervisor opening. Id. In December 2010, Mr. LaBrecque again applied for and did not receive a Supervisor promotion, the position going to another worker leader who was much younger than him and far less experienced. Stips. ¶ 8; PSAMF ¶ 3; DRPSAMF ¶ 3.6
As a result, on January 27, 2011, Mr. LaBrecque filed an informal complaint of discrimination with the Shipyard's EEO office. Stips. ¶ 9; DSMF ¶ 14; PRDSMF ¶ 14; PSAMF ¶ 4; DRPSAMF ¶ 4. At that time, he alleged that he had been denied a promotion to Painter Supervisor due to age (41), disability (tendinitis in both hands), and in retaliation for an informal EEO complaint he had filed in 2008. Id. At the time Mr. LaBrecque filed his informal EEO complaint Dana Hamil was the Code 970 Superintendent and Roland Hudson was the Shop 71 General Foreman. DSMF ¶ 15; PRDSMF ¶ 15.
Mr. LaBrecque elected to participate in an informal mediation of his complaint, which was held on...
To continue reading
Request your trial