Nettles v. Utilities

• Decision Date: 24 March 2015
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION 13-0605-WS-C
• Parties: VONEKA Q. NETTLES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DAPHNE UTILITIES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama

VONEKA Q. NETTLES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DAPHNE UTILITIES, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION 13-0605-WS-C

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

March 24, 2015

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 80) with respect to the claims of plaintiff Cedric Goodloe. The Motion has been briefed and is now ripe for disposition.¹

I. Relevant Background.

Cedric Goodloe is one of three plaintiffs who brought this action alleging race-based employment discrimination by defendant, Daphne Utilities.² As pleaded in the Amended Complaint, Goodloe, who is African-American, has asserted causes of action against DaphneUtilities for wage discrimination, alleging that he was paid less than white employees, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 ("Count VI"); and for retaliation, alleging that Daphne Utilities fired him "due to his complaints of racial unfairness on the job," again in violation of §§ 1981 and 1983 ("Count VII"). (See doc. 6, at 10.) Daphne Utilities contends that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to both of these claims.

The relevant record facts are as follows:³ Goodloe began working at Daphne Utilities as a Payroll/Benefits Coordinator/Trainer in 2006. For some period of time, he was assigned to defendant's workplace by a temporary employment agency; however, Daphne Utilities hired him as a full-time employee in December 2012, subject to a six-month probationary period. (Goodloe Decl. (doc. 90), at 1.) Goodloe's duties included payroll, benefits, interviewing, training/development, terminations, safety, and conflict resolution, among others. (Id. at 2.) His direct supervisor was Danny Lyndall, the Operations Manager for Daphne Utilities. (Goodloe Dep. (doc. 82, Exh. 1), at 21.) Neither Goodloe's job title nor his duties changed when he became a full-time, direct Daphne Utilities employee. (Id.; Goodloe Decl., at 2.)⁴

Paradoxically, the seeds of discontent were sown when Goodloe received Daphne Utilities' offer of full-time employment on December 21, 2012. That offer included compensation of $17.31 per hour; however, Goodloe, Lyndall, and Deloris Brown (HumanResources Manager) had previously agreed that $23.00 would be a fair hourly rate "based on [Goodloe's] contributions to the organization." (Goodloe Decl., at 2; Goodloe Dep., at 41-43.) Goodloe promptly objected to Lyndall that the stated compensation did not comport with the prior agreement, and indicated that he thought it was "unfair" and "seemed to be discriminatory." (Goodloe Dep., at 44, 46.) Goodloe suggested to Lyndall that there was a "pay disparity" between himself and a white employee named David Sadberry, who was hired at around the same time. (Goodloe Decl., at 2.) Goodloe balked that he was being hired at the low end of the pay scale for his job, while Sadberry had been hired at the top of his corresponding pay scale, despite Goodloe's superior education (master's degree versus high school diploma) and experience (several years versus none). (Id. at 2-3.)⁵

Notwithstanding this hiccup on the date of Goodloe's hire, the next three months passed without incident. Goodloe's "attitude and disposition" in the workplace did not change; indeed, he "worked well with everyone" at Daphne Utilities. (Goodloe Decl., at 3.) At no time between December 21, 2012 and March 26, 2013 did Lyndall or anyone else at Daphne Utilities discipline, reprimand or counsel Goodloe (either orally or in writing) for subpar performance, disrespectful conduct, a poor attitude or any other work-related deficiency. (Id.) To the contrary, Lyndall "often" stated that Goodloe was "a great employee." (Id.)⁶ No upper managerat Daphne Utilities expressed concerns to Goodloe about his job performance during this period. (Id. at 5.)

The events culminating in Goodloe's termination began, innocuously enough, at 6:29 a.m. on March 25, 2013, when he sent an email to Lyndall and two other Daphne Utilities employees. The message read as follows: "I will be out of the office today 3/25/13. However, I can be reached on my cell if you require my assistance. Thanks." (Doc. 82, Exh. 5.)⁷ Two days later, on the morning of March 27, 2013, Lyndall summoned Goodloe to his office. (Goodloe Dep., at 49.) When Goodloe arrived, Lyndall asked why he had not called to report his absence, to which Goodloe responded that he had sent an email. (Id.) Goodloe then pointed out what he perceived to be disparity in Lyndall's treatment of black and white employees. He mentioned that a white employee named Tim Jones (whom Lyndall also supervised) routinely failed to call in to report absences, and in some cases did not even send emails; however, Jones had never been disciplined for this infraction. Meanwhile, Lyndall had called Goodloe into his office to rebuke him for reporting in via email rather than telephone. (Goodloe Decl., at 4-5; Goodloe Dep., at 50.) Continuing with the theme of perceived disparate treatment, Goodloe again expressed objection to Lyndall that Goodloe had been treated differently than Sadberry as to compensation. (Goodloe Decl., at 5; Goodloe Dep., at 50.) He also complained that Daphne Utilities was not paying African-American employees at the same level as white employees. (Goodloe Decl., at 5.) He noted that a black employee named Carlos Butler had filed a grievance alleging race discrimination as to annual raises in the Wastewater Field Services Department. (Id.) Lyndall became "visibly angry" as Goodloe voiced these concerns. (Goodloe Dep., at 53.) However, plaintiff's evidence is that Goodloe conducted himself in a calm, controlled manner at all times. The discussion never became "heated," and neither Goodloe nor Lyndall raised theirvoices. (Goodloe Dep., at 53-54; Goodloe Decl., at 4.) Ultimately, Goodloe indicated that he wished to present his concerns about "unethical things going on within the organization" to the Board of Daphne Utilities. (Goodloe Dep., at 53.) At that remark, Lyndall became "enraged" and stated, "This meeting is over." (Id. at 53-54.)⁸

A short time later, Lyndall discussed the situation with Deloris Brown, defendant's Human Resources Manager. (Lyndall Dep. (doc. 82, Exh. 4), at 21.) Lyndall informed Brown that he considered Goodloe's behavior to be "inappropriate." (Id.) Lyndall and Brown decided to meet with Goodloe later that day to terminate his employment. (Id. at 22-23.) Lyndall prepared a Termination Notice, reading in relevant part as follows:

"Cedric Goodloe is within his six-month probation period as a new employee. ... Daphne Utilities uses this probation period to evaluate capabilities, work habits and overall performance. Consequently, Mr. Goodloe has not met the required performance standards of Daphne Utilities and is dismissed effective March 27, 2013."

(Doc. 90, Exh. B.) Later in the day on March 27, 2013, Goodloe was called into Brown's office. (Lyndall Dep., at 32.) When Goodloe walked in, Lyndall handed him the Termination Notice. (Id. at 32-33; Goodloe Dep., at 56.) Other than the vague text of that document, Goodloe was given no explanation for this personnel action. (Goodloe Dep., at 56.) Goodloe asked whether he could initiate an appeal or grievance, to which Brown replied that such mechanisms were unavailable to probationary employees. (Lyndall Dep., at 116.)

Daphne Utilities' only record evidence as to specific reasons for Goodloe's termination is Lyndall's averment that Goodloe "was only marginally effective in his payroll and benefits duties" and that "[d]ue to his probationary status, combined with his argumentative attitude and mediocre performance, he was terminated." (Lyndall Aff., ¶ 4.) On summary judgment, DaphneUtilities endorses Lyndall's words almost verbatim as the purportedly "legitimate business reasons for Goodloe's termination." (Doc. 81, at 29.)⁹

II. Summary Judgment Standard.

Summary judgment should be granted only "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. The party seeking summary judgment bears "the initial burden to show the district court, by reference to materials on file, that there are no genuine issues of material fact that should be decided at trial." Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11^th Cir. 1991). Once the moving party has satisfied its responsibility, the burden shifts to the non-movant to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. "If the nonmoving party fails to make 'a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof,' the moving party is entitled to summary judgment." Id. (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)) (footnote omitted). "In reviewing whether the nonmoving party has met its burden, the court must stop short of weighing the evidence and making credibility determinations of the truth of the matter. Instead, the evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBH-Siegen, 965 F.2d 994, 999 (11^th Cir. 1992) (internal citations and quotations omitted). "Summary judgment is justified only for those cases devoid of any need for factual determinations." Offshore Aviation v. Transcon Lines, Inc., 831 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11^th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted).

The Eleventh Circuit has expressly rejected the notion that summary judgment should seldom be used in employment discrimination cases because they involve issues of motivation and intent. See Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079 (11^th Cir. 2004). Rather, "the summary judgment rule applies in job discrimination cases just as in other cases. No thumb is to be placed on either side of the scale." Id. at 1086 (citation omitted); see also Williamson v. Clarke County Dep't of Human Resources, 834 F. Supp.2d 1310, 1318 (S.D. Ala. 2011)...