Parks v. La.-Pac. Corp.
Decision Date | 20 August 2019 |
Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-CV-00012-KDB-DSC |
Citation | 400 F.Supp.3d 393 |
Parties | James PARKS, Plaintiff, v. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
Craig Patrick Hensel, Hensel Law, PLLC, Greensboro, NC, for Plaintiff.
Anne Regina Yuengert, Pro Hac Vice, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, Birmingham, AL, Charles A. Stewart, III, Pro Hac Vice, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Montgomery, AL, Bridget Villacorta Warren, Matthew S. DeAntonio, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Charlotte, NC, for Defendant.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Louisiana-Pacific Corp.'s ("LP" or "Defendant") Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 18), which Plaintiff James Parks ("Plaintiff" or "Parks") opposes. The Court has carefully reviewed the motion and considered the parties' arguments, briefs and exhibits. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will GRANT the motion and enter Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant.
This matter is a discrimination and hostile work environment action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff filed this action against his former employer, LP, after he was terminated for failing to follow a written safety policy. Plaintiff asserts claims for hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and retaliation.
LP is "one of the largest building products manufacturers in North America." (Doc. No. 26, at 2.) Plaintiff was originally hired by LP on June 14, 2004 as a temporary utility worker at its Roaring River manufacturing facility in North Carolina. (Doc. No. 32, at 3.) In December 2005, LP transferred Plaintiff to the maintenance department. (Id. ) Plaintiff worked in maintenance until his termination on March 23, 2015. (Id. ) Over the course of his employment at LP, Parks received "various promotions and pay raises." (Doc. No. 26, at 4.)
The parties agree that LP has a written "Lock out/Tag out" ("LOTO") safety policy applicable to all employees who perform maintenance on machines in the manufacturing facility. The LOTO policy provides that, before performing any work on the machine, the employee must turn off the machine's energy source at the breaker and place a lock on the switch. (Doc. No. 26, at 2.) Second, the employee must verify that the machine has no power by attempting to switch it on before beginning any work. (Id. ) Citing the language of the LOTO policy, LP states that violations of LOTO "will be viewed as an act of serious misconduct" but that "[i]n all cases where discipline is being considered, the facts and merits of the specific event will be thoroughly reviewed before corrective action is taken." (Id. at 3.) Despite this written qualifier, Plaintiff takes the position that all employees were unequivocally told that any LOTO violation resulted in "automatic termination." (Doc. No. 32, at 3.) Plaintiff cites deposition testimony from his son and fellow LP employee, Michael Lamont Houpe, in support of this assertion.
The parties agree that on March 18, 2015, Plaintiff violated the LOTO policy. After receiving a work order for a machine, Plaintiff inadvertently locked out a breaker directly below the one that actually provided power to the machine. (Doc. No. 32, at 5.) The parties agree that Plaintiff then failed to verify the machine had no power before beginning to work. (Id. ; Doc. No. 26, at 5.) Citing Plaintiff's deposition testimony, LP contends that a foreman noticed Plaintiff's mistake, and instructed Plaintiff to lock out the correct machine. (Doc. No. 26, at 5.) Again citing Plaintiff's deposition testimony, LP asserts that Plaintiff then locked out the correct machine, but again failed to perform the verification step of the LOTO procedure before beginning to work.1 (Id. )
The parties agree that LP immediately suspended Plaintiff and performed an investigation of Plaintiff's LOTO violation. (Doc. No. 26, at 5; Doc. No. 22–27.) The investigators deemed the violation "willful" because "the employee understands the lockout process and chose not to complete verification prior to beginning the task." (Id. ) Plaintiff was terminated on March 23, 2015. (Doc. No. 26, at 5.) LP states that when LP employees met with Plaintiff to terminate him, Plaintiff was informed that the LOTO violation was the sole reason for his firing. (Id. )
Plaintiff also asserts that LP's Roaring River facility was "infested with racists" while he was employed there. He testified to the following facts as evidence of this assertion:
Plaintiff's Opposition also cites to Houpe's deposition testimony describing incidents in which LP employees used racial slurs. Houpe testified that he personally witnessed the following incidents:
Houpe also testified that at some point after Plaintiff complained2 about discrimination, LP...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McKenzie-El v. Ports of Am.
...forth by Title VII. See Goode, 807 F.3d at 626 (analyzing Title VII and § 1981 claims under McDonnell Douglas); Parks v. La.-Pac. Corp., 400 F. Supp. 3d 393, 412 (W.D.N.C. 2019) (assessing § 1981 claim under McDonell Douglas). In general, at trial a plaintiff "may establish a discrimination......
-
Alston v. Boeing Co.
... ... Feb. 12, ... 2018) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S ... 317, 323 (1986)). “As the nonmoving party, Plaintiff[] ... Univ. of Maryland-E. Shore , ... 787 F.3d 243, 250 (4th Cir. 2015)); Parks v ... Louisiana-Pac. Corp. , 400 F.Supp.3d 393, 412 (W.D. N.C ... 2019), appeal ... ...
-
Bennett v. The Boeing Co.
... ... Feb. 12, ... 2018) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S ... 317, 323 (1986)). “As the nonmoving party, Plaintiff[] ... Univ. of Maryland-E. Shore , ... 787 F.3d 243, 250 (4th Cir. 2015)); Parks v ... Louisiana-Pac. Corp. , 400 F.Supp.3d 393, 412 (W.D. N.C ... 2019), appeal ... ...
-
Washington v. The Boeing Co.
... ... Feb. 12, ... 2018) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S ... 317, 323 (1986)). “As the nonmoving party, Plaintiff[] ... Univ. of Maryland-E. Shore , ... 787 F.3d 243, 250 (4th Cir. 2015)); Parks v ... Louisiana-Pac. Corp. , 400 F.Supp.3d 393, 412 (W.D. N.C ... 2019), appeal ... ...