Palmer v. Centerra Grp.
| Decision Date | 27 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 1:20-cv-2120-CMC-TER |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | TRACY A. PALMER, Plaintiff, v. CENTERRA GROUP, LLC, STEVE HEALY, CHARLES SHOUP, and JOSHUA HERRING, Defendant. |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This action arises out of Plaintiff's employment with Defendant Centerra Group, LLC. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for retaliation under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. as well as state law causes of action for defamation and outrage. Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34). All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(g), DSC. This report and recommendation is entered for review by the district judge.
Plaintiff began employment with Defendant Centerra in October 1999 as a Security Police Officer II (SPO II). Pl. Dep. 12 (ECF No 46-7). Defendant Centerra contracts with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to provide security to the Savannah River Site (SRS), which stores and processes special nuclear material.[1] Plaintiff was armed with a sidearm and a long gun and also trained with heavier weapons available for the defense of the SRS. Pl. Dep. 13-14.
The SPO II position requires a DOE Q security clearance, equivalent to “top secret, ” and certification in the DOE's Human Reliability Program (HRP). Pl. Dep. 13-14. HRP is a “security and safety reliability program designed to ensure that individuals [with access to nuclear materials] meet the highest standards of reliability and physical and mental suitability” “through a system of continuous evaluation.” 10 C.F.R. § 712.1. Certification in HRP involves regular psychological evaluations by the DOE Designated Psychologist. Daniels Dep. 15-16 (ECF No. 34-13); Dr. Larry Daniels is one of two designated psychologists at SRS. Daniels Dep. 10-13 (ECF No. 34-13). It is undisputed that Plaintiff qualified for both Q clearance and HRP certification at hire, and he maintained both without issue until August of 2017.
In August 2017, Plaintiff attempted to use intermittent FMLA leave, for which he had been approved since October 2016 to care for his wife, who suffered a traumatic brain injury. (Pl. Dep. Ex. 2-6 (ECF No. 46-7). Plaintiff testified that he needed FMLA leave beginning in August 2017 because his wife's condition had declined to the point of needing full-time care. Pl. Dep. 21. Soon after Plaintiff submitted his FMLA request, United Professional Pro-Force of Savannah River Local 125 (the Union), went on strike. Pl. Dep. 31; Healy Dep. 37 (ECF No. 46-9).
On August 23, 2017, Centerra's Human Resources Manager, Defendant Healy, called Plaintiff at his home and told Plaintiff return to work immediately or turn in his badge because “the assumption was he was on strike.” Healy Dep. 39-41. Plaintiff informed Healy that he was not on strike but on approved FMLA leave. Healy Dep. 40. Healy, however, indicated that he had no proof that Plaintiff was on FMLA and thus considered Plaintiff on strike, which not only required Plaintiff to turn in his badge but also meant Plaintiff's benefits had been terminated as of the date of the strike. Healy Dep. 40-41, 46-47.
On the second day of back-and-forth between Plaintiff and Healy over Plaintiff's FMLA leave, Plaintiff informed Healy that he had hired an attorney, who was writing a letter on his behalf to demand Centerra's compliance with federal law in permitting Plaintiff to use his pre-approved FMLA, notwithstanding the strike. Pl. Dep. 35-36; Healy Dep. 61 and Ex. 3 (ECF No. 46-10). At this point, Healy asked Plaintiff to send him any documentation he had showing his use of FMLA in August 2017, and instructed Plaintiff to fax it to the records office in Workforce Services Division using a fax No. Healy provided. Healy Dep. 49, 51. Defendant Healy did not advise Plaintiff that the No. he provided was for an unsecure fax line. Healy Dep. 51.
Plaintiff complied with Defendant Healy's directive and faxed him the requested documentation to the No. Healy provided. Healy Dep. 42. The documentation included a handwritten cover letter in which Plaintiff notes that he confirmed his entitlement to FMLA with a Department of Labor investigator and two post rotation sheets from August 15 and 16 designating Plaintiff as out on FMLA. Healy Dep. Ex. 2 (ECF No. 46-10); Pl. Dep. Ex. 8-9 (ECF No. 46-7). Centerra ultimately permitted Plaintiff to use FMLA leave retroactively effective August 15, 2017, until October 8, 2017. Healy Dep. Ex. 1. Plaintiff returned to work from FMLA leave on October 10, 2017. Healy Dep. Ex. 1.
From at least 2005[2] until August of 2017, Plaintiff received one disciplinary action (a written warning) and was recommended for continued participation in HRP in each of his yearly reviews. HRP Supervisory Reviews 2005-2017 (ECF No. 46-2). Following his return to work from FMLA leave on October 10, 2017, Plaintiff received a No. of disciplinary actions.
On October 20, 2017, Plaintiff received a security infraction for sending an Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information (UCNI) document from his home to Healy on an unsecure fax machine on August 24, 2017. Healy Dep. Ex. 4 (ECF No. 46-10). Plaintiff maintains that he “told [Healy] exactly what [he] was faxing him, ” post rotations from August 15 and 16, and that he simply “did exactly what Steve Healy asked [him] to do.” Pl. Dep. 47, Ex. 9 (ECF No. 46-7). Defendant Healy denies knowing what documents Plaintiff would be faxing but admits that he did not inform Plaintiff that he was providing the No. to an unsecure fax line. Healy Dep. 49-51 (ECF No. 46-9).
On October 23, 2017, Plaintiff was investigated and temporarily removed from HRP for social media statements made while out on FMLA. Reason for Temporary/Delay to HRP (ECF No. 46-3).
On November 13, 2017, Plaintiff was disciplined for failing to identify an uncleared individual entering a secure area. Pl. Dep. Ex. 21 (ECF No. 46-7). The only record of this disciplinary action is in a HRP Supervisory Review conducted on November 16, 2017, where it is listed as an incident in which Plaintiff “displayed poor judgment or inappropriate responses while on the job.” Pl. Dep. Ex. 21 (ECF No. 46-7). There is no record of the corresponding written warning or notice of discipline Pl. Dep. 72-73 (ECF No. 46-7). However, Defendant Healy submitted the subject HRP Supervisory Review to the DOE on November 20, 2017. Pl. Dep. Ex. 22 (ECF No. 46-7). The incident also was submitted to and considered by Dr. Daniels in Plaintiff's January 25, 2018, psychological evaluation. Pl. Dep. Ex. 23 (ECF No. 46-7). Plaintiff denies the incident occurring and denies receiving any discipline for such incident. Pl. Dep. 72-73, 167 (ECF No. 46-7).
On November 14, 2017, Plaintiff was disciplined for damage to the trim of a government vehicle when Plaintiff slipped trying to enter the vehicle. Healy Dep. Ex. 7 (ECF No. 46-11). On that date, while attempting to enter a DOE van to report to weapons qualification, Plaintiff's foot slipped from the door frame and onto the plastic trim under the rear passenger side door. Healy Dep. Ex. 7 (ECF No. 46-11); Pl. Dep. 68-69 (ECF No. 46-7). The force of the fall caused the plastic trim to become almost entirely dislodged and left a gash in Plaintiff's shin. Id. When the driver of the van attempted to back out of the parking, the trim caught on the pavement and bent all the way out to the side. Id. Plaintiff then removed the rest of the trim, which only hung by one clip, because the group did not have another van to take to the range. Id. The driver reported the damage as required by Centerra policy. Id. Plaintiff maintains this incident was an accident, but Defendant Centerra characterized the damage as intentional and issued a disciplinary action to Plaintiff. Id. Defendant Healy signed the Notification of HRP Report of Discipline submitted to the DOE. Healy Dep. Ex. 7 (ECF No. 46-11).
On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff was subjected to a supplemental psychological evaluation by DOE psychologist Dr. Larry E. Daniels, during which Dr. Daniels recommended that Plaintiff remain temporarily removed from HRP duties. Daniels Dep. Ex. 1 (ECF No. 46-14).
On February 27, 2018, Plaintiff was interrogated about a reported scratch on the side of Healy's car. Plaintiff was the only individual to have his keys inspected and photographed. Healy Dep. Ex. 6 (ECF No. 46-11).
On May 1, 2018, Plaintiff was subjected to another supplemental psychological evaluation by Dr. Daniels, in which Dr. Daniels recommended that Plaintiff be returned to HRP duties. Daniels Dep. Ex. 2 (ECF No. 46-14).
On June 19, 2018, Plaintiff was disciplined for failure to report for scheduled training. Shoup Dep. Ex. 2 (ECF No. 46-12). The parties dispute whether Plaintiff received notice of the training scheduled on June 19, 2018. Plaintiff testified in this action and at a DOE hearing that he never received notice of the training. Pl. Dep. 167-68 (ECF No. 46-7); DOE Hearing Tr. 22-25 (ECF No. 46-4). Additionally, it was stipulated at Plaintiff's DOE hearing that Defendant Centerra did not have the requisite paperwork that would indicate that Plaintiff had been notified of the training. Pl. Dep. Ex. 43 (ECF No. 46-8). However, Defendant Shoup testified that Plaintiff “admitted to getting the notification form and signing it, and then a couple of days later he changed his story and he said he never got notified.” Shoup Dep. 45 (ECF No. 46-12).
On July 25, 2018,...
To continue reading
Request your trial