Murry v. Jacobs Tech., Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:10-cv-771,1:10-cv-771 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | TYRONE D. MURRY, Plaintiff, v. JACOBS TECHNOLOGY, INC., and AT&T GOVERNMENT, SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants. |
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Jacobs Technology, Inc. ("Jacobs") and AT&T Government Solutions, Inc.'s ("AT&T") Motions for Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated below, Jacobs's Motion (Doc. # 32) is GRANTED in entirety, and AT&T's Motion (Doc. # 34) is GRANTED IN PART, and DENIED as to Plaintiff Tyrone Murry's discriminatory discharge claim.
Federal employment discrimination cases invoking Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") are legion. This case, however, presents the more unusual question of when a contractor may be liable under Title VII for adverse action against a subcontractor's employee, and similarly, whether the subcontractor may be liable when its decision to terminate an employee resulted from the contractor's decision to remove the employee's access to the relevant work site.
Viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. Murry, FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e), the material facts are as follows. Mr. Murry, an African-American male and United States Air Force veteran, was hired by Jacobs in November 2008 to work on a confidential federal government project ("Project") for Special Operations Command in Chatham County, North Carolina.1 AT&T was the prime contractor at the Project, working with other subcontractors, including Jacobs. Mr. Murry responded to a job description advertised as "Mid-Level Electrical/RF Engineer." Michael Hatcher, the Jacobs Program Manager responsible for finding employees for the part of the Project that Jacobs was to perform, contacted Mr. Murry upon receiving his resume, asking for more information regarding Mr. Murry's experience with radio-frequency ("RF") systems and communication devices. Mr. Murry responded with an overview of more than 20 years experience as an electrical engineer, including work in the radio maintenance field and mobile base communications. Jacobs opted to hire Mr. Murry, and sent him a formal offer letter for the position of "Mid Level Electrical/Electronics Engineer." The offer letter included a document describing the terms of employment, including the condition that: "Employment is contingent upon your ability to perform the essentialfunctions of the Mid Level Electrical Engineer position for which you are being hired, as well as any subsequent positions to which you may be assigned." Mr. Murry signed this document on November 6, 2008.
AT&T played no role in selecting the employees hired by the subcontractors, though the company did receive Mr. Murry's resume after Jacobs hired him. The terms of the contract between AT&T and Jacobs provided that AT&T would not exercise any direct control or supervision over Jacobs employees. The contract, however, provided that AT&T had the right at any time and for any reason to reject Jacobs employees or have Jacobs remove employees from the Project. The contract also details the categories of employees that Jacobs was responsible for supplying, including a description of three positions for "Electrical/Electronics Engineer." The education and experience requirements for the listed positions are identical, except that a "senior" electrical engineer position required twelve years of experience, while the "midlevel" engineer position required seven years of experience, in the following areas: While Mr. Murry was hired as the mid-level engineer, John Kensmoe, an engineer with 30 years of experience, was hired asthe senior engineer for the Jacobs team.
Initially, eighteen individuals worked at the Project: eight AT&T employees, seven Jacobs employees, and three employees of other subcontractors. Though Mr. Hatcher was the Jacobs Project Manager, he was stationed in Florida, and accordingly designated Kent Patton, who is African-American, to be the lead on-site Jacobs employee. Any concerns or comments were to be raised with Mr. Patton, who would pass them to Mr. Hatcher. When Mr. Murry began working at the Project on November 10, Tom Morreale was AT&T's on-site program manager, and Grant Davis worked as AT&T's security manager. Despite the language to the contrary in the contract, the Jacobs employees were, in practice, under the supervision and control of the AT&T managers. Mr. Morreale and Mr. Davis assigned job tasks, controlled the Jacobs employees' schedule and behavior, and threatened discipline. Mr. Patton, the Jacobs on-site lead, was ignored or brushed-off, to the point that Mr. Hatcher requested that AT&T acknowledge Mr. Patton's role as team lead.
Indeed, Mr. Morreale's and Mr. Davis's controlling and unpleasant behavior caused much consternation among Jacobs employees. Jacobs employees complained to Mr. Hatcher regarding the supervisors' inappropriate language and belittling behavior. One such complaint describes the AT&T management attitudeas "we own you, and you'll do exactly what we tell you." Doc. 32-1 at 52.2 This tense relationship was exacerbated by the physical working conditions at the Project site. At the outset of work at the Project, everyone on the team was required to perform "initial operating capabilities" work; the building on-site was outdated and needed renovation and clearing before the technical work (for which the employees were ostensibly hired) could commence. It is undisputed that all employees at the site were assigned to tasks such as picking up trash, performing construction and installation tasks, and replacing tiles. The tile replacement project in particular triggered conflict between AT&T and Jacobs employees. Jacobs employees expressed concerns that the tiles they were removing contained asbestos.3 Mr. Murry, who had experience with facilities maintenance and safety issues, also offered input regarding electrical and structural issues with the building as these start-up tasks continued. Mr. Patton reported the Jacobs employees' safety concerns to Mr. Hatcher, along with concerns regarding the Jacobs team being required to ready the building for use. In response to employees raising such concerns, Mr. Davis threatened to fire the Jacobs employees for complaining to outside supervisors about working conditions, and told a story about how he had caused an employee at a past project to be fired for complaining.
One incident which caused particular conflict between AT&T supervisors and Jacobs employees, and which is material to this lawsuit, occurred at a Thanksgiving lunch event. On November 21 2008, employees from the Project went to a local restaurant. Mr. Murry entered the restaurant with Mr. Patton and a white female, and sat with another black male and white female. After they entered the restaurant, Mr. Morreale, who was sitting with Mr. Davis, made a comment to the effect of: "this is why we kill the black squirrels, for mixing with the white squirrels."4 Mr. Murry was upset by the comment, because "the whole attitude of it was racial and derogatory." He told Mr. Patton that he wanted the incident to be reported, and Mr. Patton quickly reported the matter to Mr. Hatcher. In response, Mr. Hatcher sent an email to Jacobs employees assuring them that Mr. Morreale's comment was inappropriate, and that he would be speaking with AT&T to ensure that similar incidents would not occur in the future. Mr. Hatcher also asked the Jacobs employees to provide him with a write-up regarding any issues with AT&T Mr. Murry did not do so.
Mr. Hatcher then spoke with Stephen Dennis, the AT&T Associate Directorof Joint Programs, who assured Mr. Hatcher that he would speak to Mr. Davis and Mr. Morreale and that the situation would not happen again. Mr. Hatcher did not disclose which Jacobs employees had raised concerns about the incident. Mr. Dennis contacted Mr. Morreale told him that such an incident could not happen again, and that he and Mr. Davis needed to address the issue with all personnel assigned to the Project.5 In addition, Mr. Hatcher spoke with both Mr. Davis and Mr. Morreale during a teleconference and advised them of Jacobs's policy against racial harassment. Mr. Hatcher also sent Jacobs employees a follow-up email and directed them to let him know if matters did not improve.
The squirrel comment is the only explicitly racial statement or conduct that Mr. Murry has identified. Nonetheless, both Mr. Murry and Mr. Patton have described Mr. Davis's behavior towards the two of them as subtly racist. For example, if Mr. Murry and Mr. Patton were walking with white employees and encountered Mr. Davis, Mr. Davis would speak to the white employees but intentionally ignore Mr. Murry and Mr. Patton. Mr. Patton was bothered by the behavior and asked Mr. Murry if he had noticed the behavior as well. After Mr. Patton and Mr. Murry had experienced this behavior on several occasions, Mr.Patton mentioned the issue to Mr. Hatcher.6 In response, Mr. Hatcher told Mr. Davis and Mr. Morreale on a conference call that Mr. Patton should be acknowledged as the Jacobs lead and kept in the loop regarding management of Jacobs employees. Mr. Murry also expressed concerns to the Jacobs General Manager, Larry Tellman, when he visited the Project on December 12, 2008; however, Mr. Murry does not state whether the concerns he expressed were related to safety issues, general supervisory behavior issues, racial issues, or otherwise.
AT&T supervisors gave Mr. Murry specific negative feedback on only one occasion. Around late December 2008 or early January 2009...
To continue reading
Request your trial