Luter v. TerraSmart, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL 3:22-CV-00398 (JCH) |
| Parties | RYAN LUTER, RALPH LUTER RALPH BROWN, DWAYNE GARDNER, ELIJAH DAMPIER, and TEVEN LOCKHART Plaintiffs, v. TERRASMART, INC. and 360 INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LLC, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs Ryan Luter, Ralph Luter, Ralph Brown, Dwayne Gardner, Elijah Dampier, and Teven Lockhart bring this action under section 1981 of title 42 of the United States Code (“section 1981”); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”); and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”) against 360 Industrial Services, LLC (“360 Industrial”). The plaintiffs allege that 360 Industrial retaliated against them for reporting race-based death threats that the plaintiffs received while working at a job site assigned to them by the defendant.
Before this court is 360 Industrial's Motion for Summary Judgment (“Mot. for Summ. J.”) (Doc. No. 38) which the plaintiffs oppose. See Plaintiffs' Objection and Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ( ) (Doc. No. 59). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
360 Industrial employs skilled trade workers and provides their services-on a temporary basis-to industrial contractors across the country. See Plaintiff's Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement of Facts ( ) ¶ 5 (Doc. No. 70); Defendant's Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement of Facts (“Def.'s 56(a)1 Stmt.”) ¶ 5 (Doc. No. 39). In August 2021, plaintiffs Ryan Luter, Ralph Luter, Ralph Brown, Dwayne Gardner, Elijah Dampier, and Teven Lockhart applied to work for 360 Industrial as solar laborers. See Pls.' 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 6; Def.'s 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 6. Each of the plaintiffs were hired by 360 Industrial in mid-August and they were initially assigned to work on TerraSmart's Hermon Solar Project in Maine starting on August 23, 2021. See Pls.' 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 7; Def.'s 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 7.
According to the plaintiffs, they were discharged from the Maine site after several days without explanation. See Plaintiff's Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement of Additional Material Facts (“Pl.'s 56(a)2 Stmt. of Add'l Facts”) ¶ 2 (Doc. No. 70). On August 30, 2021-following their time at the Hermon Solar Project-the plaintiffs started working on a TerraSmart project at the Quinebaug Solar Energy Center in Canterbury, Connecticut. See Pls.' 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 8; Def.'s 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 8. On September 1, 2021, a co-worker and 360 Industrial employee named John Aniello (“Aniello”) threatened Ryan Luter, adding that he would “get a gun and shoot all of the f***in n*****s.” Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2, Affidavit of Ryan Luter (“Ryan Luter Aff.”) ¶ 9 (Doc. No. 59-2). His final threat was directed at all of the plaintiffs, each of whom is Black. Id.; see also Pls.' 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 6; Def.'s 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 6. Ryan Luter reported the incident to his TerraSmart supervisors who were on site, but nothing was done to protect him and his fellow plaintiffs. See Ryan Luter Aff. ¶¶ 10-11.
None of the plaintiffs went to the Canterbury Project on September 2, 2021, because the site was shut down due to inclement weather. See Pls.' 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 9; Def.'s 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 9. However, when the plaintiffs arrived on September 3, 2021, they saw Aniello on the premises. See Ryan Luter Aff. ¶ 14. One of the TerraSmart supervisors initially demanded that the plaintiffs leave the job site; however, the plaintiffs refused and a 360 Industrial employee eventually called the police. Id. ¶¶ 15-16; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6, 911 Call Summary Report (“911 Call Report”) at 1 (Doc. No. 59-2). After providing their statements on the incident to the police and to a TerraSmart supervisor, the plaintiffs left the Canterbury Project. See Pls.' 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 11; Def.'s 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 11; Ryan Luter Aff. ¶¶ 17-18. 360 Industrial Managing Partner Eric Ganz conducted an investigation, terminated Aniello's employment, and instructed TerraSmart to remove him from the job site.[2] See Def.'s 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 12.
Three African-American workers-Romar Mingo, Dion Jefferson, and Carl Turner II-elected to remain at the Canterbury Project, but the plaintiffs departed based on concerns about their safety and requested 360 Industrial assign them to another job site. See Pls.' 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 11-12; Def.'s 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 11-12. 360 Industrial offered each of the plaintiffs a new assignment on the Hunt Solar Project in Hunt, New York.[3]See Def.'s 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 14; Dampier Aff. ¶ 22-23; see also, e.g., Plaintiffs' Exhibit 10, Affidavit of Teven Lockhart (“Lockhart Aff.”) ¶ 20 (Doc. No. 59-2). The plaintiffs were contacted on September 11,2021, about the job, which began two days later. See Ryan Luter Aff. ¶ 21; Dampier Aff. ¶ 22.
Ralph Luter, Ralph Brown, Elijah Dampier, and Teven Lockhart never accepted the Hunt Solar Project offer as a result of the quick turnaround-one that required a nearly eighteen-hour drive from Mississippi, see Plaintiffs' Exhibit 9, Google Maps Directions from Columbia, Mississippi to Hunt, New York (“Google Maps Directions from MS to NY”) (59-2)-as well as their unwillingness to take a job in the northeast following the trauma they endured at the Canterbury Project. See Lockhart Aff. ¶¶ 2021; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 11, Affidavit of Ralph Brown (“Brown Aff.”) ¶¶ 21-22 (Doc. No. 592); Dampier Aff. ¶ 24; Plaintiffs' Exhibit 12, Affidavit of Ralph Luter (“Ralph Luter Aff.”) ¶¶ 23-24 (Doc. No. 59-2). Despite this, the four men were incorrectly labeled as “no show[s]” at the Hunt Solar Project and did not receive any other job opportunities from 360 Industrial. See Lockhart Aff. ¶ 22; Brown Aff. ¶ 24; Dampier Aff. ¶ 25; Ralph Luter Aff. ¶ 26. Ralph Luter and Ralph Brown attempted to secure additional employment through 360 Industrial in the Mississippi area, but they were not given any opportunities. See Brown Aff. ¶ 23; Ralph Luter Aff. ¶ 25. Similarly, Elijah Dampier expressed interest in employment opportunities based in Virginia, but he was told there was no work available in the state. Dampier Aff. ¶ 21.
Ryan Luter was directly contacted by 360 Industrial about the Hunt Solar Project job. See Ryan Luter Aff. ¶ 21. On the morning of September 13, 2021, he requested that his start date be pushed back to allow for sufficient travel time from Mississippi to New York, and 360 Industrial assented. Id. ¶¶ 22-23; see also Plaintiffs' Exhibit 14, Text Messages Between Ryan Luter and 360 Industrial (“Ryan Luter Texts with 360 Industrial”) (Doc. No. 59-2). However, later that day, Ryan Luter received a text message from 360 Industrial employee Michael Latimer indicating that the work placement of Luter and the other plaintiffs was cancelled because none of them reported to the site. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 15, Additional Text Messages Between Ryan Luter and 360 Industrial “Add'l Ryan Luter Texts with 360 Industrial”) (Doc. No. 59-2). Latimer added that “[t]here will be other projects soon.” Id. Nevertheless, Ryan Luter did not receive any additional job opportunities from 360 Industrial after being identified as a “no show” at the Hunt Solar Project. See Ryan Luter Aff. ¶ 26.
Finally, Dwayne Gardner never sought additional work from 360 Industrial after the incident at the Canterbury Project.[4] See Pl.'s 56(a)2 Stmt. of Add'l Facts ¶ 16. Instead, he returned to a local landscaping job in Mississippi. Id.
The plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint against 360 Industrial-as well as another defendant, TerraSmart, Inc., who filed its own Motion to Dismiss that the court will consider separately, see Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 43)-on May 9, 2022. See Amended Complaint (“Amended Compl.”). In it, the plaintiffs bring three counts of retaliation against 360 Industrial in violation of section 1981 (Count Eight), 42 U.S.C. § 1981; Title VII (Count Nine), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; and CFEPA (Count Ten), Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46a-60(a)(4). See Amended Compl. ¶¶ 100-118.
The court now considers 360 Industrial's Motion for Summary Judgment[5] on all three Counts. See Mot. for Summ. J.; Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (“Def.'s Mem.”) (Doc. No. 40); Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (“Def.'s Reply”) (Doc. No. 65). The plaintiffs oppose the Motion. See Pl.'s Mem.
A motion for summary judgment may be granted only when the moving party can establish that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986); Wright v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr., 831 F.3d 64, 71-72 (2d Cir. 2016). If the moving party satisfies this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is indeed “a genuine issue for trial.” Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir. 2009). A genuine issue exists where “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Cross Commerce Media, Inc. v. Collective, Inc., 841 F.3d 155, 162 (2d Cir. 2016). Unsupported allegations do not create a material issue of fact and cannot overcome a properly supported motion for summary judgment. See Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33, 41 (2d Cir. 2000). In assessing the record to determine whether there are disputed issues of material fact, the trial court must “resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” LaFond v. Gen. Physics Servs. Corp., 50 F.3d 165, 175 (2d Cir. 1995).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial