Lewis v. M7 Prods., LLC
| Decision Date | 26 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-1805-SDD-RLB |
| Citation | 427 F.Supp.3d 705 |
| Parties | Daniel LEWIS and Linda Norwood Lewis v. M7 PRODUCTIONS, LLC, John P. Shirey, David Dungan, Henry Nowacki, Michael Hendrick, Kow Wing Chin, and Laura Wallgren |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
Robert Neill Aguiluz, Robert N. Aguiluz, Attorney at Law, Baton Rouge, LA, for Daniel Lewis, Linda Norwood Lewis.
Susan W. Furr, Molly C. McDiarmid, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Baton Rouge, LA, for John P. Shirey, David Dungan, Henry Nowacki, Michael Hendrick, Kow Wing Chin, Laura Wallgren, M7 Productions, LLC.
RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment1 by Defendants, M7 Productions, LLC, John P. Shirey, David Dungan, Henry Nowacki, Michael Hendrick, Kow Wing Chin, and Laura Wallgren ("collectively, Defendants"). Plaintiffs, Daniel Lewis ("Plaintiff")2 and Linda Norwood Lewis ("Mrs. Lewis")(or collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed an Opposition3 to which Defendants filed a Reply.4 For the following reasons, the Court finds that Defendants' motion for summary judgment should be granted in part and denied in part.
On or about May 8, 2015, M7 Productions, LLC ("M7") began "principal photography" on the movie "The Magnificent Seven" in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.5 Plaintiff, who was otherwise known as "Papa D,"6 was employed as a driver for M7,7 and he provided transportation for the set decorating department of the production.8 Defendants John "Phil" Shirey ("Phil" or "Shirey"),9 David Dungan ("Dungan"), Henry Nowacki ("Nowacki"),10 Michael "T-Bone"11 Hendrick ("T-Bone" or "Hendrick"),12 Kow Wing Chin ("Chin"), Roy Farthing ("Farthing"), and Laura Wallgren ("Wallgren)"13 were employed by M7 in the set decorating department.14 Plaintiff's job placed him in daily contact with the management personnel and the employees in the set decorating department.15 Further, due to this day-to-day contact, Plaintiff claims it was well known on the set of "The Magnificent Seven" the he enjoyed talking to anyone about "how precious" his granddaughter is to him.16
Defendants present background information, supported by Plaintiff's deposition testimony, illustrating the strained relationship not only between Farthing and Plaintiff but also between Plaintiff and the other set dressers. While the details of these relationships as portrayed by Defendants is largely irrelevant to the motion before the Court, the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff and Farthing were irritated and annoyed with one another on a consistent basis.17
The facts giving rise to this lawsuit involved a display of mannequins by members of the set department.18 Sometime in late August of 2015, Farthing allegedly dressed up a male mannequin and a female child mannequin and placed the name "Roy" on the adult male mannequin. The male mannequin was positioned to be holding hands with a "female child mannequin."19 Defendants do not dispute these facts but argue that Plaintiff believed the mannequin depicted Farthing, so Plaintiff initially had "no problem" with the mannequins.20
Farthing allegedly commented that he needed to dye the female child mannequin's hair red, presumably in reference to Plaintiff's granddaughter who has red hair.21 Defendants claim that Plaintiff spoke to Dungan about a woman with red hair whom he met on another set. Because Dungan presumed Plaintiff was attracted to this woman, Defendants contend Dungan's testimony suggests that the child mannequin could have represented this other woman.22 Defendants maintain that, at this time, Plaintiff had no problem with the display.23
Around September 2, 2015, Plaintiff contends Defendants changed the positions of the mannequin to reflect that the "adult male mannequin" was sitting on a table with his legs spread, and the "child mannequin" was placed with her head between the legs, apparently "performing fellatio on him."24 The name "Papa Lock" was placed on the "adult male mannequin"25 along with "Gambit," both nicknames allegedly referring to a subject frequently discussed by Plaintiff ostensibly identifying Plaintiff as the adult male mannequin.
Defendants claim that a sticker saying "Atlanta" was added to the mannequin's hat representing where Farthing talked about heading after leaving M7.26 Plaintiff argues that "Atlanta" and "Gambit" are references to a different movie production about which Plaintiff frequently commented, "[i]f I ever hear Atlanta or Gambit again, I will throw up."27 Plaintiff also argues that he talked about how he gambles at the casinos as a hobby, and the adult mannequin had an ace of spades in his hand. Further, the hat on the adult mannequin was replaced at some point with one that Plaintiff wore every day.28
Plaintiff maintains the adult male mannequin was intended to represent him, and the other mannequin was intended to represent his granddaughter.29 Plaintiff complained at work that the mannequin display was upsetting and "not right," but he does not recall to whom he initially reported his complaint.30
The record reflects that this mannequins display remained on display for between two and three weeks. During this time, the mannequins were moved into various different positions, and Plaintiff claims he continued to complain. On September 17, 2015, Plaintiff contends that the "set dressers" added a "speech balloon" above the "male mannequin's" head that stated, "[t]ake this with a grain of salt." Plaintiff alleges this speech balloon was directed at him due to his complaints.31 On September 18, 2015, Plaintiff claims the "set dressers" modified the display and removed the "child mannequin's" head from the lap of the other mannequin. The "set dressers" then allegedly placed the "adult mannequin's" hand in the "crotch area" of his lap with the "child mannequin" located next to him and allegedly "looking down" at the "adult mannequin."32
Defendants challenge Plaintiff's timing of these events. Defendants contend Plaintiff initially took a picture of the display and showed it to his union captain, prompting the "doll" to be moved to a standing position "the next day."33 Defendants cite Plaintiff's testimony, arguing that the mannequins remained in the initial posture, in the lap, for approximately one week.34 However, the transcript of the testimony cited by Defendants actually states "for at least a week plus," indicating Plaintiff's belief that the display was up for longer than one week.35
During the time of these mannequin displays, Plaintiff's supervisor and "leadman" Shirey was out of state, and T-Bone, the "gang boss," was left in charge of the set dressing
department on "The Magnificent Seven" set. Plaintiff claims he asked T-Bone to "stop the harassment" because it was "driving [him] crazy."36 Plaintiff further claims that T-Bone not only failed to take action in response to his request, but instead, he "escalated the harassment" by conducting daily meetings in front of the mannequins. The display was placed where the set department had daily meetings, and when T-Bone conducted the meetings, he did it standing "right in front of the doll," which caused Plaintiff to stop going to the daily meetings.37 Plaintiff also testified that the display was placed so that he had to pass it to go to the bathroom.38 Thus, to simply gain access to the water, Powerade, snacks, and drinks that were provided on the job, Plaintiff would have to see the display.39 Further, Plaintiff testified that T-Bone's own declarations acknowledge that he was the "Gang Boss."40 T-Bone states in his declaration that he established the list entitled "Driver Rules" that was implemented against Plaintiff, and he also admits in his declaration that he had Plaintiff was ultimately removed from the set department.41
While Defendants argue that, upon Shirey's return, he directed that the "doll" and mannequin be removed altogether,42 Plaintiff maintains the damage had been done. Further, Plaintiff objected to his transfer because he felt that M7 was "taking action" against him, rather than on his co-employees, in "retaliation" for Plaintiff's complaints. Also, the position to which he was transferred "ended sooner" that the position from which he was transferred. Plaintiff claims that the "retaliation culminated" on October 9, 2015, when he was released from employment while his former position continued to be employed.43
Defendants contend that Plaintiff's transfer to the construction department was due to a wholly different incident.44 Defendants argue that Plaintiff was transferred because he refused to complete certain tasks required by his driver position, such as pushing the button to lift and lower the lift gate. Defendants contend Plaintiff specifically refused to operate the lift gate for Nowacki or Dungan because they "didn't know how to act right."45 T-Bone allegedly reported Plaintiff's behavior to Plaintiff's union captain and asked the union to replace Plaintiff.46 Defendants also challenge Plaintiff's assertion that, had he stayed with the set dressing
department, his job would have lasted longer, arguing that Plaintiff has no way of knowing on what date his employment would have ended had he remained in the set dressing department.47
Plaintiffs initially filed suit on September 15, 2016, in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana, alleging three claims against the Defendants: intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and loss of consortium.48 Plaintiffs amended their petition49 on December 7, 2017, adding an additional claim of sexual harassment pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.50 Subsequently, this matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on December 28, 2017.51 Defendants now move for summary judgment on all Plaintiffs' claims.52
Summary judgment should be granted if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lemonia v. Westlake Mgmt. Servs.
...the workplace,” courts have set a high standard for determining what constitutes a hostile work environment. Lewis v. M7 Prods., LLC, 427 F.Supp.3d 705, 720 (M.D. La. 2019) (internal quotation omitted). The conduct must be both subjectively and objectively offensive, meaning that the victim......
-
Garcia v. Westlake Chem. Corp.
... ... § 1332. (Doc. 1). A ... federal court sitting in diversity applies the substantive ... law of the forum state. Lewis v. M7 Prods., LLC, 427 ... F.Supp.3d 705, 722 (M.D. La. 2019) (citing Erie R. Co. v ... Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)). Accordingly, the ... ...
-
Duhon v. Bd. of Supervisors For La. State Univ. & Agric. & Mech. Coll.
... ... Agency, 343 F.Supp.3d 637, 646 (W.D. Tex. 2018) (citing ... Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)) ... [ 26 ] Lewis v. Univ. of Texas Med. Branch ... at Galveston, 665 F.3d 625, 631 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Texas ... v. Walker, 142 F.3d 813, 819 (5th ... infliction of emotional distress.”) ... [88] White , 585 So.2d at ... 1209 ... [89] Lewis v. M7 Prods., LLC, 427 ... F.Supp.3d 705, 723-24 (M.D. La. 2019) (internal quotations ... and citations omitted) ... [90] Doc. 55 at 21 ... ...
-
Wallace v. Performance Contractors Inc.
...in the workplace," courts have set a high standard for determining what constitutes a hostile work environment. Lewis v. M7 Prods., LLC, 427 F.Supp.3d 705, 720 (M.D. La. 2019) (internal quotation omitted). The conduct must be both subjectively and objectively offensive, meaning that the vic......