Lemonia v. Westlake Mgmt. Servs.
| Decision Date | 19 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:20-CV-01593 |
| Parties | GLENN M LEMONIA v. WESTLAKE MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the court is a Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. 17] filed by defendant Westlake Management Services, Inc. (“Westlake”) in response to the employment discrimination suit brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by plaintiff Glenn Lemonia. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Doc. 29.
This suit arises from plaintiff's employment at Westlake, a chemical plant located in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. Doc 1. Plaintiff, an African-American man, began his employment as an electrician in 1989 at the facility known as “Westlake South,” under the management of Westlake's predecessor PPG. Id. at ¶ 11. Plaintiff's employment was subject to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) and plaintiff was a member of the union-represented bargaining unit. Doc. 17 att. 3, ¶¶ 3 & 4. Westlake acquired the Westlake South site in 2016, and plaintiff continued working there. Id. at ¶¶ 4-5.
In March 2017, electrical maintenance superintendent Leon Campbell moved plaintiff and other electricians to Plant B Doc. 17, att. 4, ¶¶ 2-3. The union grieved the move, alleging that only African-American electricians were moved. Id. After an investigation, the company determined that Caucasian employees were also moved and denied the grievance. Id. Plaintiff then filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, which dismissed the charge and issued a notice of suit rights on May 25, 2017. Doc. 17, att. 1, pp. 96-97. Plaintiff did not file a suit after this dismissal. Id. at 78-79.
In 2018, Westlake instrumentation, electrical, and controls manager Bryan Thompson initiated a site reorganization with the assistance of electrical maintenance superintendent Leon Campbell that resulted in the addition of three new electrical maintenance supervisor positions. Doc. 29, att. 3, pp. 15, 18; 22-26. All three supervisor positions reported directly to Campbell, who in turn reported to Thompson. Id. at 18-19; doc. 29, att. 4, p. 28. Both Thompson and Campbell are white. Doc. 17, att. 2, ¶ 1; doc. 29, att. 2, p. 54.
Plaintiff applied for the position and emailed Campbell in August 2018 to express his interest. Doc. 17, att. 1, pp. 84, 98. In September, before interviews, plaintiff complained to Campbell about new chairs in the Plant B breakroom. Doc. 17, att. 2, ¶ 3. He then renewed his complaint about the chairs to Thompson, and further complained to Thompson that Campbell had screamed and cursed at him when he raised the issue. Id. Thompson told plaintiff he would look into the situation and that he could always bring discrimination or safety-related concerns to him, but suggested that he try to resolve more minor issues directly with his supervisor. Id. To illustrate his point, he recalled an incident where plaintiff had complained about not receiving an appreciation meal after a successful turnaround. Id. Thompson then met with Campbell, who denied cursing or yelling at plaintiff but said he was open to talking with plaintiff about his concerns. Id. at ¶ 4. Thompson met with plaintiff again and reported Campbell's response. Id. at ¶ 5. He also offered to let plaintiff keep his old chair. Id. Thompson recalled that he tried to coach plaintiff on “how to effectively elevate issues,” but that plaintiff said he was going to talk to human resources about his concerns about what Thompson had said. Id.
After this conversation plaintiff filed an internal complaint against Campbell and Thompson, alleging that they had engaged in threatening and harassing verbal conduct. Doc. 1, ¶ 15. Plaintiff then interviewed for the supervisor position on October 4, 2018, with a team including Campbell, Thompson, two human resources representatives, and two other superintendents in similar positions to Campbell. Doc. 17, att. 2, ¶ 6. At the time plaintiff was sixty-one years old. Doc. 29, p. 18; see, e.g., doc. 29, att. 10, p. 1.
The team concluded that plaintiff had not interviewed well, with team members recalling that plaintiff provided vague and non-specific answers, offered limited details, and failed to show leadership through the examples he chose. Doc. 17, att. 2, ¶¶ 6-7; see doc. 17, atts. 6-11 (declarations of other interview team members). Thompson testified that the interviewers used the “Interview Guide for General Professionals” in their interviews for the electrical maintenance supervisor position. Doc. 29, att. 3, pp. 38-39. The guides from plaintiff's interview were produced in discovery and show notes by the respective interviewers along with individual ratings between 2 and 3 out of 10 in the relevant domains. Doc. 29, att. 25. The scoring sheets support the interviewers' declarations, with interviewers' notes indicating that plaintiff's examples were too general and that he failed to explain them. Id. at 8-9, 20-21, 32-33, 44, 47, 56, 68. Plaintiff was not offered the promotion and only one of the three positions was filled by an internal candidate-Chris Bellon, a 34-year-old white male. Doc. 17, att. 2, ¶¶ 7-8. The other two positions were offered to external applicants John Frank (African-American, 47 years old) and Josh Vernier (white, 39 years old). Id. at ¶ 9. Frank turned down the position and it was instead filled by Joseph Holcombe (white, 32 years old).[1] Id.
On November 14, 2018, Campbell assigned plaintiff and one other electrician to a temporary move to Plant C to assist with a significant unplanned outage. Doc. 17, att. 4, ¶¶ 6, 9; doc. 17, att. 2, ¶ 11. Plaintiff complained to human resources regarding the move and then took vacation from November 27 through December 3, 2018. Doc. 17, att. 4, ¶ 6; doc. 17, att. 1, pp. 103-05. On the day of his return, December 4, HR manager Barbara Downer met with plaintiff regarding his complaints about supervisors and the transfer. Doc. 17, att. 3, ¶ 12. According to Downer's affidavit, she shared that the company takes complaints very seriously and that his had been investigated, leading to opportunities to coach his supervisors. Id. Concerning the transfer to Plant C, however, she stated that the company had the right to move its workforce in response to business needs. Id.
Later that day, plaintiff alleged that he was unraveling a solder wire at his work station when he noticed that someone had tied a “noose” at the end of it. Doc. 1, ¶ 20. In response the union president and two security officials came to document the event and take the noose to human resources. Id. After meeting with different Westlake officials over the next several days, who assured him they were investigating the incident, plaintiff filed a complaint with the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Office on December 12, 2018. Id. at ¶¶ 2124. On December 14, 2018, plaintiff filed a grievance through the union relating to his temporary transfer to Plant C. Doc. 17, att. 3, ¶ 13. The company determined that the transfer was legitimate and likewise moot because plaintiff had already returned to his regular assignment. Id.; doc. 17, att. 4, ¶ 9. The union then withdrew the grievance. Doc. 17, att. 3, ¶ 13.
Meanwhile, Westlake human resources staff investigated the noose incident through December 2018 and January 2019. Managers Barbara Downer and Melissa Padgett interviewed everyone with access to the work area but were unable to find anyone who noticed something new or noteworthy. Doc. 17, att. 3, ¶ 14; doc. 17, att. 4, ¶ 10. Human resources director John Boulanger, who was based out of Houston, also kept in touch with plaintiff about the status of the investigation via phone. Doc. 17, att. 5, ¶¶ 2-3. At the conclusion of the investigation he traveled to plaintiff's work site and met with him, recalling the meeting as follows:
When Lemonia and I met on January 29, 2019, Lemonia thanked me for meeting with him. I noted that a majority of Lemonia's concerns could and should be handled through the CBA's grievance process. I also specifically addressed the Company's position in regarding Lemonia's 2018 application for a supervisor position. Regarding the spool of wire, I told Lemonia that based on my own prior experience, the end of the spool of wire appeared to me how I would have safely secured the end of the wire. Nevertheless, I told Lemonia that the Company thoroughly investigated the issue, Westlake was unable to identify the person who left the spool on Lemonia's workstation, and was concluding the matter. I also confirmed with Lemonia that no other incidents had occurred, and Lemonia verified that fact. I also told Lemonia that Lemonia could call me on my cell if Lemonia had any new information to share.
Around the same time, Thompson began preparing for annual reviews of the employees in his unit. He instructed Campbell to seek input from the internal constituents who worked directly with those employees in order to get feedback on their performance. Doc. 17, att. 2, ¶ 12. Regarding plaintiff Campbell reportedly received “quite a bit of negative feedback” including complaints about the amount of time he took to complete work, his unwillingness to assist others, his unnecessary escalation of issues to the company's safety department and stopped jobs for issues he could have safely resolved himself, his failure to complete tasks, and his habit of spending too much time visiting with others. Id. Based on this feedback, plaintiff received an “unsatisfactory” overall evaluation for 2018 and was placed on an improvement plan at a meeting in February 2019.[2] Id. at ¶ 13; doc. 17, att. 1, p. 171. Plaintiff and the union filed a...
To continue reading
Request your trial