Murry v. Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:11CV00368 JLH,4:11CV00368 JLH |
| Parties | KENNETH D. MURRY PLAINTIFF v. ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.; and ENTERGY SERVICES, INC. DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
Kenneth Murry filed this action against Entergy Arkansas, Inc., and Entergy Services, Inc., alleging that the defendants discriminated against him based on his race and retaliated against him for complaining about race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. The defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment, and Murry has responded. For the following reasons, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied in part and granted in part.
Murry, an African-American, began working in Entergy Arkansas's Transmission Line ("T-Line") Department as a Lineman's Apprentice in 2002. Doc. #13. Between 2002 and 2006, Murry was promoted all the way up to Journey Lineman. Id. In late 2006, Murry applied for a position as an Associate Engineer in the T-Line Department. Doc. #25. In December, Murry interviewed with Audie Foret who was the T-Line Manager for the state of Arkansas. Id. Foret selected Murry, and subsequently promoted him to Operations Coordinator. Id. Murry's duties primarily entailed coordinating with work crews to maintain the T-Lines and coordinating the work of outside contractors. Id. Murry worked in Entergy's Little Rock office and reported to Foret until approximately June of 2009 when Foret became Regional Manager for the Southern Region of Arkansas. Id. At that point, Murry began to report to Foret's replacement, Monty Harrell. Id.
As Murry's direct supervisor, Foret was responsible for completing Murry's annual performance evaluations. Id. Exempt employees, like Murry, are not entitled to annual raises. Id. Rather, such raises are based on merit and depend, in part, upon each employee's performance evaluation ratings and contributions. Id. An employee rated as "Improvement Required" will not receive a bonus or a raise. Id. Because of Murry's performance evaluations' ratings in 2008, 2009, and 2010, he did not receive a raise or bonus for those years. Id.
In 2007, Foret gave Murry a generally favorable performance evaluation and rated him a "Valuable Contributor," but noted that Murry needed to work on his communication with team members. Id.; Doc. #12-7. Foret commented in the evaluation that he had discussed Murry communications issues with him on several occasions in 2007. Doc. #12-7. In 2008, Foret found several performance issues in Murry's evaluation and gave him an "Improvement Required" rating. Docs. #25, #12-8. The evaluation states that Murry met only three of eight goals; he failed to meet the safety, personnel, ECI, reliability-grid, and field presence goals. Doc. #12-8. According to the comments on the evaluation, Murry failed to meet his target safety goal because he failed to request a "hot line hold" on a transmission line on which a contract crew was working, on and had taken a "hot line hold" while not being on-site. Id. The evaluation indicates that Murry did not meet the personnel goal because he shared information from staff meetings with crew members which unnecessarily created conflict and concern. Id. Foret testified that he asked those in staff meetings to keep the information confidential. Doc. #12-2. The evaluation indicates that Murry did not meet the ECI goal because he failed to document or commence projects approved by Foret. Doc. #12-8. The evaluation indicates that Murry did not meet the reliability-grid goal because he failed to complete outage follow up in a number of cases, failed to complete updates to "TCOS," and wouldtravel several hours to inspect a line even though co-workers who could perform the inspection were closer. Id. Additionally, the evaluation states that Murry failed to keep his work group appraised of his plans or location. Id. Finally, the evaluation indicates that Murry did not meet the field presence goal because he failed to complete safety observation forms. Id.
Foret also stated on the evaluation that Murry was tardy to staff meetings; did not interact well with coworkers; was minimally competent in company policies, practices, and procedures; had organizational problems; would take a long time to perform jobs which should require little effort; did not listen well to his customers; did not know who his customers were in relation to the job; failed to consider the big picture when making decisions; tended to be negative; resisted changes to company methodologies; was not a good listener; did not share information; had poor communication skills; was a source of disruptive gossiping; did not respond well to constructive feedback; and would lose his composure during conflict.1 Id. Regarding the communications issue, Foret specifically noted that Murry had poor written and verbal communication skills, would submit emails with pictures attached but no explanation, would forward emails without commenting or providing input, and would not listen well. Id. Foret commented that Murry and he had discussed Murry's need to improve his communications, and that they had agreed to focus on this area. Id.
In response, Murry testified that many of the communication issues with his white co-workers resulted from their refusals to respond to his requests to swap shifts or return his emails and calls. Doc. #26-2. Murry explains that he drove long hours to perform inspections because co-workerswho may have been closer would not respond to his requests for assistance. Id. Furthermore, Murry contends that there is no company rule requiring an operation coordinator to be on-site during a hold. Doc. #26-2. Murry concedes that while he may have shared some information from staffing meetings with crew members, but he says that there is no company rule requiring that such information be kept confidential. Id. Murry further denies was ever told to keep the discussions in the staff meetings confidential. Id. Murry also testified that it was common place among his co-workers not to complete outage follow-up and updates to "TCOS." Id. Murry testified further that he never failed to request a "hot line hold." Id.
Foret testified that, based on the 2008 evaluation, Murry was placed on a performance improvement plan in 2009. Doc. #12-2. Murry, however, states that he was not informed of any performance improvement plan until 2010. Doc. #26-1.
Similarly, Murry's 2009 performance evaluation noted various problems and rated Murry as "Needs Improvement." Doc. #12-10. Harrell, Murry's new supervisor, completed the evaluation. Entergy contends that, except for one conversation Foret had with Harrell in 2009, Foret had no input on the evaluation. However, Murry states that Forest sent him a copy of an interim evaluation near the end of August indicating that he was still involved in the formulation of the final evaluation. Doc. #26-1. Further, Harrell testified that he discussed the final evaluation with Foret in early 2010, and admitted that some of the comments in the evaluation were from Foret. Doc. #26-5. In fact, the evaluation refers to supervisor comments as "Foret/Harrell Final." Doc. #12-10.
Unlike in 2008, Harrell found that Murry satisfied all seven goals in his 2009 performance evaluation. Id. However, the evaluation indicates that Murry had incidents of failing to comply with certain safety rules; did not admit to his mistakes or take constructive criticism and tended to makeexcuses, blame others, and argue about other problems unrelated to the subject of the criticism; failed to keep information from staff meetings confidential; was not viewed as a team player; had problems with time management; failed to provide for needed materials and equipment for assigned crew; had a low level of customer satisfaction; had conflicts with supervisors of crews assigned to him; and was a source of gossip. Id. The evaluation states that Murry needs to continue working on his communications skills. Id.
As with his 2008 evaluation, Murry disputes the factual bases of some of these criticisms or contends that Harrell and Foret unfairly held him solely responsible for problems for which his co-workers were primarily responsible. Id.; Doc. #26-2. Specifically, Murry reiterates his complaint that his white co-workers would not return his emails or calls. Doc. #26-10. Murry points to testimony by Harrell conceding that some of Murry's white co-workers would neglect to respond to Murry's communication requests. Doc. #26-5. Harrell also testified that he did not discuss these communication failures with the other employees or include them on those employees' performance evaluations. Id. Murry also questions how Harrell could find that Murry met or exceeded all his goals, and yet also given Murry so many low competency scores. Doc. #12-10.
Finally, Murry's 2010 evaluation also rated him as "Needs Improvement." Doc. #12-11. This evaluation was performed by Jeff Guy.2 Id. According to the evaluation, Murry did not meet his compliance, efficiency, financial, and customer focus goals. Id. The evaluation indicates that Murry failed to meet his target compliance goal because he failed to complete a task assigned him to rewrite some of Entergy's transmission maintenance standards. Id. The evaluation states that Murry failedto meet his target efficiency goal because he did not participate on any "ECI" projects. Id. According to the evaluation, Murry failed to meet his target financial goal because he did not complete and invoice wood pole inspections for Louisiana. Id. The evaluation indicates that Murry failed to meet his target customer focus goal because he relied solely on email to contact customers, did not follow up with customers, and used an abrupt and inappropriate tone in some of his emails. Id.
In the "System Competencies" section, Guy wrote that Murry showed a lack of respect for stakeholders and other...
To continue reading
Request your trial