Moore v. PenFed Title, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-0867
| Decision Date | 18 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:20-cv-0867 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | CARY MOORE, Plaintiff, v. PENFED TITLE, LLC, et al., Defendants. |
Hon. Liam O'Grady
Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 22) filed by Defendants PedFed Title, LLC and Pentagon Federal Credit Union (hereinafter "PenFed"). For the following reasons, PenFed's motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Cary Moore "was hired and started work on October 2, 2017 as PenFed Title's Vice President, Title & Settlement Operations." Dkt. 28, at 4. His duties "included responsibility for operations and business development for [PenFed Title's] Reston office and overseeing the management of the title and settlement operations of the affiliated companies in Texas and California . . . ." Id. His starting salary "was $140,000 per year plus 15% in commissions of the net revenue from the business he generated." Id. He was designated as an "M-Class Employee" in PenFed's compensation system. Id. at 4-5. His immediate supervisor, Mr. Shashi Vohra, authorized his hiring and set his compensation. Id. at 4.
Mr. Moore quickly expanded PenFed's business. Id. at 5. In turn, he almost immediately sought an increase in his compensation. See id. at 5-7. At first, he was told that he could not receive a spot bonus less than six months after being hired. Id. at 6. Later, he was denied a year-end bonus on the grounds that he was receiving a commission. He subsequently discovered that this explanation was false; his subordinates, who were receiving commissions, had received a year-end bonus. This chagrined Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore's campaign to earn more money continued. On several occasions in 2019, Mr. Moore unsuccessfully sought performance evaluations from his supervisor, Mr. Vohra. Id. Mr. Vohra's refusal to provide a performance evaluation inhibited Mr. Moore's eligibility to obtain a merit-based increase in his salary. This augmented Mr. Moore's frustration.
With his compensation in a state of apparent stagnation, Mr. Moore complained to Human Resources (HR) that "he was being discriminated against based on his race." Id. at 6. At some point in response to his inquiry, HR informed him that his salary was below the "midpoint" level of the salary range for M-Class employees at PenFed. Id. at 7. This information stoked his pay-related grievance.
Mr. Moore's conduct during his tenure at PenFed was less then exemplary in certain respects. Within six months of joining PenFed, one of his employees resigned. See Dkt. 28, at 12. In this employee's Exit Interview Questionnaire, she described Mr. Moore's workplace behavior in a negative light:
I decided to start seeking alternative employment when I felt that I could no longer trust [Mr. Moore]. There had been several instances when I was told by my manager to go against something our underwriter was saying. . . . I also heard through the grapevine that he had several lawsuits [brought] against him, one being sexual harassment case. . . . He also made me feel uncomfortable when he told me to take his coffee cup to the kitchen and then laughed about it . . . and did the same thing to two other females in the office. He also made the comment that if it were legal, he would beat his wife for spending money. Both actions combined is [sic] not something I feel comfortable with . . . Lastly [Mr. Moore] is constantly doing work for another company . . . and makes those phone calls . . . during work hours.
Id. HR investigated the business ethics concerns that were raised but did not probe the employee's complaints about Mr. Moore's harassment. See Dkt. 28-23, at 6-12.
Ironically, Mr. Moore lodged his own complaints about harassment, albeit on behalf of another female employee. One of Mr. Moore's direct subordinates, Kerry Brandon, was managing PenFed's affiliated title business in Texas, Members Title of Texas. Dkt. 28, at 9-10. Through Mr. Moore's interactions with Ms. Brandon in 2018, he learned that the President of PenFed Realty of Texas, Russell Rhodes, "repeatedly engaged in abusive behavior toward [Ms. Brandon], including speaking to her in a condescending tone and making derogatory remarks, including referring to her as a 'dumb blonde' and 'nitwit.'" Id. at 10. Mr. Moore, in turn, confronted Mr. Rhodes, urging him to "cease the abusive treatment." Id. Mr. Moore also reported Mr. Rhodes to PenFed HR. Id. Mr. Moore's efforts to "protect" Ms. Brandon ultimately fell short. Mr. Rhodes's abusive conduct persisted until Ms. Brandon resigned her position in August 2019.
On November 7, 2019, shortly after Ms. Brandon resigned (and while Mr. Moore was still diligently seeking an increase in his compensation), PenFed HR received a call from the spouse of the former employee that had resigned in 2018. Id. at 11. The spouse reported that based on recent conversations with current PenFed employees, Mr. Moore's harassing conduct was continuing. Mr. Moore was apparently referring to the "women in the office as work wives and sister wives," and was telling them that "he doesn't get enough attention at home, so he expects to receive attention from them at work . . . ." Id. at 13.
This call prompted PenFed to launch an investigation into Mr. Moore's conduct. Delia Cook of PenFed's Human Resources Department took the lead. She interviewed six employees under Mr. Moore's direct supervision. These employees gave statements that, in aggregate,evidenced a pattern of sexual harassment by Mr. Moore, at least in the view of PenFed. Mr. Moore was interviewed briefly about his conduct before being placed on leave and terminated in December 2019. Two weeks later, he obtained a higher paying position as Vice President of Operations at First Title, a competing Title Company.
On July 29, 2020, Mr. Moore filed a three-Count complaint against PenFed, alleging Title VII unequal compensation discrimination (Count I), Title VII wrongful termination (Count II), and Title VII retaliation (Count III). See generally Dkt. 1. The Parties engaged in discovery, and PenFed filed a motion for summary judgment on April 13, 2021. Dkt. 22. Mr. Moore filed an opposition, Dkt. 28, and PenFed filed a reply, Dkt. 29. The matter is now fully briefed and ripe for review.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment will be granted where, viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, there remains no genuine issue of material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Marlow v. Chesterfield Cty. Sch. Bd., 749 F. Supp. 2d 417, 426 (E.D. Va. 2010). A party opposing a motion for summary judgment must respond with specific facts, supported by proper documentary evidence, showing that a genuine dispute of material fact exists and that summary judgment should not be granted in favor of the moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). As the Supreme Court has held, "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 519 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Anderson, 447 U.S. at 247-48) (emphasis in original). "Summary judgment cannot be granted merely because the court believes that the movant will prevail if the action is tried on the merits."Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 568 (4th Cir. 2015).
IV. DISCUSSION
Absent direct evidence of discrimination, Moore must employ the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. See Matias v. Elon Univ., 780 F. App'x 28, 30 (4th Cir. 2019) (citing Strothers v. City of Laurel, 895 F.3d 317, 327 (4th Cir. 2018) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973))). The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework is designed to elucidate pretextual discrimination in the absence of "conduct or statements that both reflect directly the alleged discriminatory attitude [of an employer] and that bear directly on the contested employment decision." See Warch v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 435 F.3d 510, 520 (4th Cir. 2006).
Under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, once a Plaintiff establishes the elements of a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the Defendant employer to proffer evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for taking the adverse employment action. See Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981) (citing McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802). If the employer carries its burden, "the plaintiff must then have an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered" were pretextual. Id. (citing McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804). A "plaintiff's prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer's asserted justification is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 148 (2000).
Mr. Moore urges the Court to analyze his claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. See Dkt. 28, at 1 (citing Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253). The Court will proceed accordingly.
To establish a prima facie case of Title VII unequal compensation discrimination, Mr. Moore must show: "(1) membership in a protected class; (2) satisfactory job performance; (3) adverse employment action with respect to compensation; and (4) that similarly-situated employees outside the protected class received more favorable treatment." Williams v. Carolina Healthcare Sys., Inc., 452 F. App'x 392, 394 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting White v. BFI Waste...
To continue reading
Request your trial