Locascio v. BBDO Atlanta, Inc.

Decision Date20 October 2014
Docket NumberCivil Action File No. 1:14–CV–207–TWT.
PartiesBrian LOCASCIO, Plaintiff, v. BBDO ATLANTA, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

Andrew Yancey Coffman, Allan Leroy Parks, Jr., Parks Chesin & Walbert, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff.

Gary Richard Kessler, Gary R. Kessler, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant.

ORDER

THOMAS W. THRASH, JR., District Judge.

This is an employment discrimination action. It is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 11] of the Magistrate Judge recommending that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7] be denied. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. The Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation as the judgment of the Court. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7] is DENIED. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 3] the original Complaint is DENIED as moot.

ORDER FOR SERVICE OF NON–FINAL REPORT, RECOMMENDATION, AND ORDER

RUSSELL G. VINEYARD, United States Magistrate Judge.

Attached is the Non–Final Report, Recommendation, and Order of the United States Magistrate Judge made in this action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and this Court's Local Rule 72.1. Let the same be filed and a copy, together with a copy of this Order, be served upon counsel for the parties.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party may file written objections, if any, to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of this Order. Should objections be filed, they shall specify with particularity the alleged error or errors made (including reference by page number to the transcript if applicable) and shall be served upon the opposing party. The party filing objections will be responsible for obtaining and filing the transcript of any evidentiary hearing for review by the district court. If no objections are filed, the Report and Recommendation may be adopted as the opinion and order of the district court and any appellate review of factual findings will be limited to a plain error review. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam).

The Clerk is directed to submit the Report and Recommendation with objections, if any, to the district court after expiration of the above time period.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 1st day of August, 2014.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER AND NON–FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Brian Locascio (Locascio), brings this action against defendant BBDO Atlanta, Inc. (BBDO), alleging retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“ § 1981 ”). [Doc. 5].1 BBDO has filed a motion to dismiss Locascio's amended complaint for failure to state a claim, [Doc. 7],2 which Locascio opposes, [Doc. 9]. For the reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that BBDO's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, [Doc. 7], be DENIED.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Locascio began working for BBDO, a national advertising agency, in September of 2006. [Doc. 5 at 2–3].3 From January of 2011 until his termination in September of 2013, Locascio was assigned to work full-time as the Creative Director for BBDO's client account with the Georgia Lottery Corporation (“GLC”), which was one of BBDO's most lucrative clients. [Id. ]. Locascio's primary client contact with GLC was GLC's Creative Manager, James Hutchinson (“Hutchinson”). [Id. at 3]. While he was assigned to the GLC account, Locascio alleges that Hutchinson “routinely insisted” that Locascio ensure that BBDO hire contractors, including directors, freelancers, vendors and production companies, on the basis of race and gender. [Id. at 4]. Specifically, Locascio alleges that Hutchinson “made clear that he required black or African–American persons [to be] hired for specific jobs to meet ‘diversity’ goals,” and that, on some occasions, Hutchinson presented Locascio with a “detailed breakdown of the number of black contractors to use for GLC advertising projects.” [Id. ].

Locascio alleges that he alerted BBDO to Hutchinson's “diversity requirements,” which were already well-known to BBDO, and that he “expressly objected to Hutchinson's insistence that Locascio make hiring and contracting decisions based on race,” but that BBDO “took no action to prevent Hutchinson's discriminatory conduct.” [Id. ]. Locascio also complained to BBDO's Human Resources Officer, Debbie Lindner (“Lindner”), that he believed it was unlawful to hire contractors on the basis of race in accordance with Hutchinson's directives, [id. at 4], but BBDO “rejected [his] concerns on the stated belief that making hiring decisions based on race was lawful to achieve or maintain ‘diversity,’ [Id. at 4–5].

Locascio alleges several specific instances during the summer of 2013 in which he complained to BBDO about hiring contractors on the basis of race. See [Id. at 5–8]. In particular, Locascio describes an incident when he and other members of BBDO's creative team selected a “trusted freelance contractor” by the name of Matthew Crouch (“Crouch”), to work on a GLC commercial assignment in July of 2013. [Id. at 5]. Locascio alleges that when BBDO sought Hutchinson's approval to hire Crouch, who was white, Hutchinson “insisted” that they hire William Robert Ray (“Ray”), who was black. [Id. ].4 Locascio further asserts that when a certain member of BBDO's creative team “openly questioned the legality of Hutchinson's demand,” the Project Manager of BBDO responded by e-mail that they did not have time to investigate the legality of Hutchinson's mandate.” [Id. ]. Locascio further alleges that “BBDO directed [him] to acquiesce to Hutchinson's discriminatory demand,” that he hire Ray as a freelance designer “because of his race,” and “not because of his abilities or qualifications[.] [Id. at 5–6]. Locascio asserts that Crouch was also hired “to essentially perform the work ostensibly assigned to Ray.” [Id. at 6].

Later that month, Hutchinson “again insisted that BBDO hire Ray” to work on another GLC project that had been assigned to Locascio's creative team. [Id. ]. Hutchinson allegedly told BBDO that he viewed the hiring of Ray as a ‘diversity issue.’ [Id. ]. Locascio and the other members of BBDO's creative team then received an e-mail from BBDO employee Danielle Claiborne (“Claiborne”), stating that Hutchinson had told Claiborne that we need to get [ ] Ray in here to do the freelance,” as [Hutchinson] feels it's an issue of diversity.” [Id. ]. Locascio responded to the e-mail, asking for confirmation and noting that ‘this is about to become a huge issue.’ [Id. ]. In reply, Claiborne “confirmed Hutchinson's requirements,” and added that [Hutchinson had] specifically mentioned AA [African–American] designers in terms of getting diversity ....’ [Id. (second and third alterations in original) ].

Locascio once again approached Lindner in the Human Resources office, and complained about the “use of race in hiring,” with specific reference to Hutchinson's “directive to hire Ray.” [Id. at 7]. Locascio ultimately “refused to hire Ray, because he believed that doing so, based solely on Ray's race, constituted unlawful racial discrimination.” [Id. ]. Locascio alleges that after Hutchinson learned of his refusal to hire Ray, Hutchinson stopped returning Locascio's calls and e-mails and otherwise ceased communicating with Locascio about BBDO's ongoing advertising projects with GLC. [Id. ]. As Hutchinson's “lack of communication negatively impact[ed] [Locascio's] ability to perform his job duties,” Locascio “again informed Lindner that he objected to hiring contractors based on their race and that he specifically had objected to hiring Ray.” [Id. ]. Locascio also informed Lindner that “his refusal to hire contractors for GLC projects based on race was the reason that Hutchinson was no longer communicating with him,” and that “BBDO's tolerance of [Hutchinson's] discriminating practice was impacting Locascio's ability to do his job.” [Id. at 7–8].

Following this complaint, BBDO removed Locascio from the GLC account and reassigned him to ‘new business' in August of 2013. [Id. at 8]. Locascio alleges that “BBDO knew at the time it transferred [him] away from the GLC account that there was insufficient ‘new business' for him to work on,” and that, on September 30, 2013—within one month of his reassignment—BBDO terminated his employment on the purported basis that there was “no work for him.” [Id. ]. Locascio asserts that BBDO's actual purpose in removing him from the GLC account was to “terminates employment and avoid having to complain to GLC about Hutchinson and his unlawful practices,” [id. ], and that BBDO's termination of Locascio was in fact “calculated to send a message to other [BBDO] employees that in order to remain employed, [ ] they would have to participate in unlawful and discriminatory employment practices,” [id. at 10].

Based on these events, Locascio filed a complaint against BBDO on January 23, 2014. [Doc. 1]. After BBDO moved to dismiss the complaint, see [Doc. 3], Locascio filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss, [Doc. 6], as well as a first amended complaint, [Doc. 5]. On March 31, 2014, BBDO moved to dismiss the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

[Doc. 7]. Locascio has filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, see [Doc. 9], to which BBDO has filed a reply, [Doc. 10]. The sole claim of the amended complaint is that BBDO retaliated against Locascio, in violation of § 1981, by terminating his employment as a result of his opposition to BBDO's apparent racially discriminatory employment practices. See generally [Doc. 5].

II. STANDARD ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal of an action when the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In considering BBDO's motion...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Dixon v. Nat'l Sec. of Ala., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • 8 Mayo 2020
    ...2:12-cv-2870-TMP, 2014 WL 2547826, at *12, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77378 (N.D. Ala. June 4, 2014); see also Locascio v. BBDO Atlanta, Inc., 56 F. Supp. 3d 1356, 1364 (N.D. Ga. 2014); Reynolds v. Golden Corral Corp., 106 F. Supp. 2d 1243, 1253-54 (M.D. Ala. 1999). Based on such precedent, Dixo......
  • Davis v. Auburn Bank
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • 30 Marzo 2016
    ...show a "sufficient temporal proximity" between theadverse employment action and the protected activity. Locascio v. BBDO Atlanta, Inc., 56 F. Supp. 3d 1356, 1370 (N.D. Ga. 2014). Plaintiff's complaint does not allege facts that would support a § 1981 claim for employment retaliation. In ord......
  • Moore v. Cobb Cnty. Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • 2 Junio 2021
    ......1:19-CV-4174-MLB-WEJ United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division June 2, 2021 . . . FINAL REPORT AND ... judgment.” Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc. ,. 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). . . ... relationship on discriminatory grounds, Locascio v. BBDO. Atlanta, Inc. , 56 F.Supp.3d 1356, 1363 (N.D.Ga. 2014). ......
  • Moore v. Cobb Cnty. Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • 18 Agosto 2021
    ...... No. 1:19-cv-4174-MLB United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division August 18, 2021 . . . OPINION & ORDER ... (citing O'Connor v. PCA Fam. Health Plan, Inc. ,. 200 F.3d 1349, 1353-54 (11th Cir. 2000)). “[W]here an. ... Locascio v. BBDO Atlanta, Inc. , 56 F.Supp.3d 1356,. 1363 (N.D.Ga. 2014). . ......
  • 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