Nahum v. Boeing Co.
| Decision Date | 28 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 2:19-cv-1114-BJR |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
| Parties | SETONDJI NAHUM, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, et al., Defendants. |
Pro se Plaintiff Setondji Nahum accuses his former employer, Defendant The Boing Company, and his former supervisor, Defendant Jeffrey Dillaman, of discrimination, harassment, and defamation based on his termination from employment. Before the Court are the parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. See Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J., Dkt. No. 90 ( ); Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Dkt. No. 98 ("Pl.'s Mot.").1 Having reviewed the Motions, the oppositions thereto, the record of the case, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion and deny Plaintiff's Motion.2 The reasoning for the Court's decision follows.
Plaintiff was hired by Boeing on February 16, 2018 as an Industrial Engineer Level 2, which entails "developing implementing, and evaluating processes to optimize efficiency during aircraft production." Defs.' Mot. at 4; see also Decl. of Jeffrey Dillaman, Dkt. No. 92 ¶¶ 2-4 ("Dillaman Decl."). Mr. Dillaman became Plaintiff's manager shortly thereafter on March 9, 2018. Defs.' Mot. at 5. Plaintiff describes himself as an African and Black male. See, e.g., Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 47 at 5.
Defendants claim that from the very beginning of Plaintiff's employment it was apparent that he was "unable to successfully coordinate with other teams or deliver results in accordance with the expectations of his role." Id. at 5. According to Defendants, Plaintiff was unable to work collaboratively, maintained an argumentative, sarcastic, and mocking tone, and was unresponsive to both constructive criticism and direct orders from his supervisors. Defendants have submittednumerous contemporaneous emails from Plaintiff's supervisors and coworkers attesting to, and demonstrating, the difficulty in working with Plaintiff. See, e.g., Dillaman Decl., Exs. 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42. These concerns were expressed in Plaintiff's one, and only, performance evaluation while employed with Boeing. See Dillaman Decl., Ex. 6, Dkt. No. 92 at 28-33 ("2018 Performance Evaluation"). The Evaluation includes "Interim Manager Insights" from Mr. Dillaman signed June 29, 2018, which include the comment that "[t]here are areas that need to improve to meet my expectations at the end of the year (mostly in terms of taking direction and working effectively with others)." Id. at 32. The Evaluation was finalized on November 14, 2018 and includes numerous performance based criteria, for which Plaintiff was consistently ranked as "met expectations" except for the relevant categories of Communication, Customer Satisfaction, and People Working Together for which he was ranked "Met Some Expectations." Id.
Defendants claim that Plaintiff's intransigence quickly led to workplace issues. In mid-August 2018, for example, Defendants claim that Plaintiff seven times refused to complete a work task, assembling a Production Planning Change Request ("PPCR"), which Mr. Dillaman expressly charged him with completing. Defs.' Mot. at 6-8. Plaintiff rejects this claim and argues that, based on company policy, a PPCR was not necessary. See Pl.'s Mot. at 6; Pl.'s Resp. at 13-14. Defendants responds that a PPCR was both necessary and that, whether or not it was necessary, Plaintiff's refusal to complete the work even after direct instruction from his supervisor created workplace issues. Mot. at 7-8. Mr. Dillaman submitted the incident to Boeing's Human Resources for investigation and possible discipline. Dillaman Decl. ¶ 28; Decl. of Tami R. Foxe, Dkt. No. 93 ¶ 3 ("Foxe Decl."). Tami Foxe, a Human Resources Generalist, conducted a fact-finding investigation, interviewing various employees involved in the dispute, and concluded that Plaintiff failed to comply with management expectations. Foxe Decl. ¶¶ 5-7; see also Foxe Decl., Ex. 44, Dkt. No. 93 (Investigation Case Notes). Based on that finding, Plaintiff was issued a Corrective Action Memo ("CAM") on September 4, 2018. See Dillaman Decl., Ex. 15, Dkt. No. 92 at 86 (First Employee Corrective Action Memo).
According to Defendants, Plaintiff's combative and dismissive behavior continued after his first CAM. Defendants report that he continued to refuse to follow directions from Mr. Dillaman and other team members concerning simple tasks such as sorting out confusion in statements of work, creating workflow documentation in project management tools, and refusing to attend team meetings. Mot. at 8-10. Mr. Dillaman again submitted this insubordination to Boeing HR. Id. at 10; Decl. of Janet Bishop, Exs. 45 (Fact-Finding Investigation Request Form); 46 (Incident Details), Dkt. No. 94 ("Bishop Decl."). The matter was assigned to Timothy Saner, another Human Resources Generalist, who conducted another fact-finding investigation. Dillaman Decl. ¶¶ 47-48; Bishop Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; see also Bishop Decl., Exs. 47 (Investigation Case Notes); 48 (Plaintiff's Edits to Mr. Saner's Written Summary). Based on his investigation, Mr. Saner concluded that Plaintiff failed to comply with management directions and expectations to complete required tasks. Bishop Decl. ¶ 8. On February 7, 2019, Plaintiff was issued his second CAM. See Dillaman, Decl., Ex. 26, Dkt. No. 92 at 123 (Second Employee Corrective Action Memo).
Based on his belief that the two CAMs issued against him were unwarranted, Plaintiff submitted three complaints to Boeing's ethics team on April 10, 2019. Mot. at 14-15. Review of the complaints reveals no allegation of discrimination. See Decl. of Carl E. Weaver, Exs. 50, 51, 50 (Case Detail Reports), Dkt. No. 95 ("Weaver Decl."). The complaints were compiled andassigned to Carl Weaver of Boeing's Corporate Investigations Team, who conducted an internal investigation.
Meanwhile, according to Defendants, Plaintiff's second CAM did not resolve his behavioral issues. For example, in January of 2019, Defendants claim that Plaintiff refused to complete another PPCR, despite being directed to do so multiple times by Mr. Dillaman. Mot. at 10-11. Further in March of that year, Defendants claim Plaintiff was unable to complete a task assigned to him, despite specific directions from Mr. Dillaman, leading to frustration throughout the assigned team and delay in the project. Mot. at 11-12. When given constructive feedback on the assignment, Mr. Dillaman claims that Plaintiff was dismissive and unyielding. Id. at 11; see also Dillaman Decl., Ex. 31, Dkt. No. 90 at 190-92 (March 22, 2019 Email Chain between Mr. Dillaman and Plaintiff). This incident led Mr. Dillaman to submit Plaintiff to HR for a third time. Mot. at 13-14; Dillaman Decl. ¶ 69; see also Decl. of Kima Lima, Exs. 54 (Fact-Finding Investigation Request Form); 55 (Incident Details), Dkt. No. 96 ("Lima Decl.").
The matter was assigned to a third Human Resources Generalist, Kim Lima, who conducted a third fact-finding investigation. Mot. at 15; Lima Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5-11; see also Lima Decl., Exs. 56-59 (investigation materials). Based on her review of the facts, Ms. Lima concluded that Plaintiff had failed to comply with management direction in violation of company policy. Lima Decl. ¶ 12. Since this was his third violation in the same year, Plaintiff was issued a third CAM and terminated on May 13, 2019. See Dillaman Decl., Ex. 43, Dkt. No. 92 at 249 (Third Employee Corrective Action Memo). This decision corresponded with the conclusion of Mr. Weaver's investigation of Plaintiff's internal complaints. On May 8, 2019, Mr. Weaver concluded that, based on his investigation, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate Plaintiff's claimsof unfair treatment. Mot. at 15; Weaver Decl. ¶ 9.
Defendants produce affidavits and contemporaneous emails from the third investigation attesting to the brimming frustrations among supervisors and colleagues with Plaintiff's inability to complete his assignments, dismissive attitude, and refusal to take responsibility. Mot. at 13-14. One email from this timeframe is instructive, in which Steve Simpkins, the manufacturing lead for the project to which Plaintiff was assigned, wrote to Mr. Dillaman on March 22, 2019:
After his termination, Plaintiff applied to the Washington Employment Security Department ("ESD") for unemployment benefits. Defs.' Mot. at 15-16. ESD contacted Boeing with a claim form, which was handled by Boeing's authorized unemployment compensation agent, TALX UCM Services Inc. ("TALX"). On June 10, 2019, TALX informed ESD that Plaintiff had been discharged for violation of a reasonable and knowable company policy. Decl. of Amy C. Evans, Dkt. No. 97 ¶ 4; see also id., Ex. 62, Dkt. No. 97 at 5-6 (TALX Cover Letter to ESD). This included brief summaries of Plaintiff's three CAMs and supporting materials. ESD, nevertheless, approved Plaintiff's application for unemployment benefits. Pl.'s Mot., Ex. 1, Dkt. No. 98-1 at 252.
On July 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court advancing seven self-styled causes of action, including: (1) racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;(2) retaliation in violation of Title VII; (3) wrongful termination through abuse of power and authority; (4)...
To continue reading
Request your trial