Points v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 January 2015
• Docket Number: Civil No. 13-1210 WJ-SMV
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
• Parties: MICHAEL D. POINTS, Plaintiff, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. Defendant.

MICHAEL D. POINTS, Plaintiff, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. Defendant.

Civil No. 13-1210 WJ-SMV

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

January 5, 2015

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 16, 2014 (Doc. 41). Having reviewed the parties' briefs and applicable law, the Court finds that Defendant's motion is well-taken and, therefore, is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is an age and disability discrimination case filed under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621-634 ("ADEA"); the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. ¶ 12101-12213 ("ADA"); and the New Mexico Human Rights Act, NMSA 1978, §28-1-1 et seq. ("Human Rights Act"). Plaintiff worked for Honeywell International, International, Inc. ("Honeywell" or "Defendant") as a Journeyman servicing heating and cooling units for the Roswell Independent Schools in Roswell, New Mexico. Plaintiff alleges that his employment with Honeywell was terminated in December 2009 based upon a discriminatory motive, and seeks relief including reinstatement to his position of Journeyman and compensatory damages.

I. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuinely disputed issues of material fact and, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Bruner v. Baker, 506 F.3d 1021, 1025 (10th Cir. 2007). Once the party moving for summary judgment properly supports its motion, it is incumbent on the non-moving party to respond with some showing of an issue of genuine material fact. Allen v. Denver Pub. Sch. Bd., 928 F.2d 978 (10th Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Svcs., 220 F.3d 1220, 1228 (10th Cir. 2000). The non-moving party may not rest on averments in its pleadings, but instead must establish specific triable issues. Gonzales v. Miller Cas. Ins. Co. of Texas, 923 F.2d 1417 (10th Cir. 1991). The mere existence of some alleged, immaterial factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986).

II. Factual Background—General Observations

In reviewing the facts presented by the parties, it becomes clear that Defendant's statement of undisputed facts ("SOF") is essentially undisputed, and Plaintiff has not presented any triable issue. The Court comes to these conclusions through the following observations. Plaintiff's response to Defendant's SOF consists almost entirely of mere assertions that the facts are disputed, without any reference to evidence or exhibits. In order to preclude summary judgment, Plaintiff as the nonmoving party bears the burden to "go beyond the pleadings" and "designate specific facts" so as to "make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case' in order to survive summary judgment." McKnight v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 149 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff's failure to do so leaves the facts presented by Defendant as undisputed.

Plaintiff has also presented his own SOF, but none of these creates any disputed issues. A few of these facts rely on statements by Plaintiff's wife, which the Court agrees is largely impermissible hearsay—such as Edie Points' testimony that Plaintiff told her that he was told he "no longer had a job." Resp. at 4, ¶ 17; at 7, ¶¶32-33, and at 32-33. Hearsay testimony, whether in an exhibit, affidavit or document, cannot be used to defeat a motion for summary judgment because a third party's description of a witness's supposed testimony "is not suitable grist for the summary judgment mill." Wright-Simmons v. City of Oklahoma City, 155 F.3d 1264, 1268 (10th Cir. 1998). Other facts presented by Plaintiff are immaterial, are either not supported by any evidence, or are even contrary to the available evidence. For example, Plaintiff's SOF 1 that the Roswell School District recommended Honeywell hire Mr. Points is immaterial. Plaintiff's SOF 2, which states that Mr. Erivez, Mr. Points' supervisor with Honeywell, "alleges there performance issues with Mr. Points," does not qualify as an additional fact. Moreover, Defendant's SOF 8 covers the same information more directly. See Deft's SOF 8 ("Within the first three of four months of Plaintiff's employment with Honeywell, Mr. Erivez observed several equipment problems that he attributed to Plaintiff's failure to perform preventative maintenance.").

Plaintiff's SOF 5 is an example of a fact that is not supported by the evidence. Plaintiff states that Mr. Erivez "never discussed any performance concerns or complaints with Mr. Points." In support of this fact, Plaintiff cites to his deposition testimony where he stated that Mr. Erivez never shared any concerns about his work performance. Resp., Ex. 2 at 33:20-24. However, Plaintiff did not offer any evidence to dispute Defendant's SOF 19 which states that Mr. Erivez "met with Plaintiff to discuss his unacceptable performance and the request by the Roswell District Maintenance Manager that he be removed from his assignment at that schooldistrict." Further, Plaintiff himself admitted in his deposition that Mr. Erivez did meet with him to communicate concerns about his work performance and his refusal to go through proper procedure. Ex. 2 (Pltff's Depo.) at 34:12-25; 44-45:17-5. Because the Court is not required to consider contradictory factual allegations made in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff's self-serving statements may be rejected by the Court. See Darnell v. Target Stores, 16 F.3d 174, 179 (7th Cir.1994) (plaintiff cannot create genuine issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment by relying on contradictory deposition testimony and affidavits by plaintiff); Mack v. United States, 814 F.2d 120, 124 (2d Cir.1987) (plaintiff's opposition papers may be properly disregarded based on his inconsistent and contradictory statements).

All of Plaintiff's statement of facts belong within one of the above-described categories. Further examples are not necessary to make the point that Defendant's facts control the factual narrative because Plaintiff has not presented any material evidence or testimony to the contrary.

III. Factual Narrative and Chronology¹

Plaintiff began working for Honeywell as a unionized Journeyman on August 6, 2007. Honeywell's Field Service Leader for the Rocky Mountain District, Art Erivez, hired Plaintiff and supervised him throughout his employment. Plaintiff was 60 years old at the time of his hire, and 63 years at the time he was terminated. Art Erivez was 57 years old at the time he hired Plaintiff. Plaintiff was primarily assigned to perform heating, ventilation, and air conditioning ("HVAC") services primarily in schools within the Roswell Independent School District ("the Roswell District"). Prior to beginning his employment with Honeywell, Plaintiff worked for the Roswell District for approximately 10 years performing HVAC service work. InJuly 2007, Honeywell expanded its work with the Roswell District to include mechanical maintenance work, including HVAC maintenance and repair. Because of Plaintiff's background knowledge of the Roswell District, Honeywell hired him to work as a Journeyman. In this role as a Journeyman, Plaintiff was expected to: (1) be the primary person to troubleshoot and repair HVAC equipment at the Roswell District schools that were assigned to him; and (2) perform all routine preventative maintenance on the HVAC equipment at the Roswell District schools, which included changing the air filters on a computer generated schedule, cleaning the evaporator and/or heating coils, doing yearly inspections on the heating combustion chambers and doing any other maintenance task that the equipment may need.

A. Plaintiff's Employment Until May 2009

Within the first three or four months of Plaintiff's employment with Honeywell, Mr. Erivez observed several equipment problems that he attributed to Plaintiff's failure to perform preventative maintenance. Several of Plaintiff's co-workers also informed Mr. Erivez that they had witnessed Plaintiff making mistakes or failing to properly perform his duties. For example, Plaintiff's co-worker, Manuel Ortiz, observed that Plaintiff did not know how to use or fix the newer HVAC equipment installed at the Roswell District schools. As a result, Mr. Ortiz would often receive requests from the schools assigned to Plaintiff to respond to problems Plaintiff could not resolve. Ortiz. Decl., Ex. 5, ¶¶ 8-9. After one particular issue in which Plaintiff failed to properly diagnose a defective chiller expansion valve, which resulted in excessive warming at a school, the school was reassigned from Plaintiff to Mr. Ortiz. Another of Plaintiff's co-workers, John Besing, also alerted Mr. Erivez that Plaintiff failed to perform all of his work and that Mr. Besing would have to fix things that Plaintiff could not fix. Besing Decl., Ex. 6, ¶ 10; Ex. 4 (Erivez Dep.) at 59-60:21-4; 74:18-20.

Following these initial issues, Mr. Erivez became aware of numerous other performance deficiencies with Plaintiff. David Eldridge was the Maintenance Manager for the Roswell District while Plaintiff was employed by Honeywell.² In January 2008, Mr. Erivez received an email from Mr. Eldridge complaining that Plaintiff failed to follow proper call procedures for a specific maintenance issue and failed to return the Roswell District's equipment as requested. Mr. Eldridge noted that "[w]ith [Plaintiff] having the custodian call him directly I do not have a clue as to what is going on with the heating and cooling and we will lose control of this real fast." Ex. 1, ¶ 9; Ex. 4 at 63:13-20, 65:25-66:8, 66:19- 71:4; Ex. 7 (January 2008 email between David Eldridge and Plaintiff). Mr. Erivez met with Plaintif...