Patterson-Eachus v. United Airlines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 19-cv-01375-MEH |
| Parties | RHONDA PATTERSON-EACHUS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff worked for Defendant for thirty-one years in several capacities, most recently as a supervisor of airport operations. Her conduct and performance were not an issue until, as Defendant describes it, she posted certain "divisive" messages on Facebook. Defendant learned of those messages, investigated them, found other issues with Plaintiff's on-the-job conduct, and terminated Plaintiff based on its purported findings that Plaintiff's negative interactions with subordinates irreparably damaged her ability to supervise. Plaintiff alleges the termination violates (1) age and gender discrimination laws; (2) the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. § 2701; (3) Colorado's Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-402.5; (4) Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-108 regarding protections for certain political activity; (5) Colorado public policy; and (6) an implied employment contract. Defendant now moves for summary judgment on all claims.
The Court makes the following findings of fact viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, who is the non-moving party in this matter. In some instances, I have quoted directly from the evidentiary record when a party characterizes the evidence in a way the opposing party disputes. Further, at times Plaintiff or Defendant denies a fact without any citation to evidence, which is not a proper denial. In her response brief Plaintiff provides additional facts, and I have incorporated those that I find relevant to the issues before me. The facts below are numbered consist with Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, which cites to the evidence in the record.
1. Defendant hired Plaintiff on September 21, 1986.
2. Defendant is an at-will employer.
3. When Plaintiff applied to work at Defendant, she signed an acknowledgment of understanding that her employment with Defendant "may be terminated by United Airlines or by [her] at any time[.]"
4. On October 3, 1999, Defendant promoted Plaintiff to the supervisor level as a team lead for airport operations.
5. Plaintiff remained at the supervisor level from October 3, 1999, through her termination on October 16, 2017, although her job titles and work groups changed during those eighteen years.
6. When Defendant terminated Plaintiff on October 16, 2017, she was a supervisor of airport operations, a position she held continuously since September 16, 2012.
7. Between 2012 and 2017, Plaintiff received positive performance reviews, although for one element of her 2016 year-end review, Plaintiff's then-supervisor gave her a "Partially Meets Expectations" rating under the "Models character" category. In support of this rating, Plaintiff'ssupervisor commented: "Once in a while [she] appear[s] to be highly emotional and comments can come across rude and biting."
8. Plaintiff was among the few employees who certain managers would consider for "upgrades" to "backfill" their position during manager absences, which upper management could approve or disapprove. Qualifications for an employee to be considered for "upgrade" include having good operational knowledge, good communication skills, working with the front line and the supervisors, and having good relationships with subordinate employees.
9. On October 31, 2016, a United employee submitted via Defendant's employee helpline an anonymous complaint about Plaintiff ("rude and unprofessional behavior" and "belittle[ing]" and "demean[ing]" the complainant).
10. Defendant provides its employees with periodic training on its anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, and anti-retaliation policies.
11. Defendant's Working Together Guidelines ("the UAL Guidelines") address the company's policies and procedures on anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, and anti-retaliation.
12. The UAL Guidelines prohibit employees from sending, receiving, storing, accessing, printing, or disseminating "offensive or harassing statements or language, including any disparagement of others based on any protected category," such as color and race.
13. The UAL Guidelines require employees to ensure that their postings "are dignified, respectful, and honest" and informs employees that the company "will investigate complaints about inappropriate postings and, if warranted, take appropriate corrective action."
14. The UAL Guidelines require employees to report offensive workplace behavior, including violations of the Guidelines.
15. Employees may report offensive workplace behavior in various ways, including: to one's supervisor or manager; to more senior management; to human resources or the Employee Service Center; to an anonymous hotline; or to a designated email address.
16. Defendant's Performance Management Process, which applies to supervisor-level employees, consists of midyear and end-of-year reviews. These reviews address performance in specific job duty categories.
17. To address supervisor-level employees performance deficiencies, managers may implement a performance improvement process in partnership with human resources.
18. The UAL Guidelines state: "If the severity of an incident warrants it, leaders may bypass a performance improvement option and accelerate discipline up to and including termination of employment."
19. Managers have five options for resolving a supervisor-level employee's performance issues, if automatic termination is unwarranted: coaching/informal counseling; verbal warning; written warning; termination warning letter; and disciplinary or investigative suspensions. As a supervisor, Plaintiff herself administered discipline progressively to her subordinates relying on the UAL Guidelines.
20. The UAL Guidelines call for termination of employment, in consultation with human resources, when the performance improvement process is unsuccessful or when the severity of an incident warrants immediate termination.
21. Specifically, the UAL Guidelines state: "Termination of employment will occur when . . . the severity of an incident warrants immediate termination."
22. Sometime in August 2017, on her personal time and computer, Plaintiff re-posted to her private Facebook page her support for preserving the "Rebels" mascot of her high school, WeldCentral High, including a cartoon soldier superimposed on a Confederate flag (the "Rebels mascot post").
23. Sometime also in August 2017, Plaintiff re-posted to her private Facebook page a video of an African American male in front of a Confederate flag who, among other things, opined that the Confederate flag is not the evil that many people say it is (the "Confederate flag post").
24. In August of 2017, Plaintiff was Facebook friends with other United employees, including employees she supervised at the time.
25. On August 23, 2017, at about 10:00 p.m., one of Plaintiff's colleagues advised her that her Facebook postings offended one of the African American customer service agents who Plaintiff supervised and had friended on Facebook.
26. A few hours later, on August 24, 2017, at 12:28 a.m., Plaintiff sent an email to Ed Eget, Senior Manager of Human Resources and Employee Engagement at United's Denver hub, about her offensive Facebook posts.
27. On August 24, 2017, at 5:14 p.m., Mr. Eget informed Plaintiff by email that she should remove the Confederate flag post. Plaintiff avers that the post had already been removed.
28. On August 24, 2017, at 8:08 p.m., Plaintiff informed Mr. Eget by email that she removed the Facebook post regarding her high school mascot, and that the video was no longer on her Facebook page.
29. About four hours later, Plaintiff emailed Mr. Eget her Facebook log-in information, which Mr. Eget did not request.
30. Plaintiff sent Mr. Eget her Facebook log-in information to prove that she removed the offending postings and because she "was that desperate to try to prove to United that . . . [she] wasn't trying to hide anything" to "save [her] job[.]"
31. No one told Plaintiff that Defendant would take corrective action if she did not provide her Facebook log-in and password to Defendant's management.
32. Mr. Eget did not use Plaintiff's Facebook log-in information.
33. Soon after Plaintiff's Rebels mascot and Confederate flag posts, a Black customer service agent met with Mr. Eget to discuss how those postings hurt and upset her.
34. On August 29, 2017, Plaintiff's manager, Tamera Mitchell, disciplined Plaintiff, in the form of a documented verbal warning, for Plaintiff's Facebook posts that offended Defendant employees.
35. The documented verbal warning noted that Plaintiff's posts violated the UAL Guidelines on professionalism and social networking.
36. The documented verbal warning also advised Plaintiff that "[f]urther unacceptable personal conduct or policy violation will result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination."
37. The next day, on August 30, 2017, a United employee submitted via Defendant's employee helpline an anonymous complaint about Plaintiff's Rebels mascot and Confederate flag posts.
38. According to the August 30, 2017 anonymous complaint report, the complaining United employee deemed the Rebels mascot and Confederate flag posts racially insensitive, was offended, and did not believe that she received honest, fair treatment from Plaintiff as her supervisor.
39. Defendant commenced an investigation in connection with the August 30, 2017 anonymous complaint. It obtained statements from customer service agents Plaintiff supervised. Tammy Mitchell, Plaintiff's then direct reporting manager, was excluded from participating in the internal investigation ostensibly to avoid a conflict of interest because of Ms. Mitchell's perceived close relationship with Plaintiff. Luke David (Managing Director Airport Operations/CustomerService)...
To continue reading
Request your trial