Pree v. Stone and Webster Engineering Corp., CV-R-83-17-ECR.

• Decision Date: 20 March 1985
• Docket Number: No. CV-R-83-17-ECR.,CV-R-83-17-ECR.
• Citation: 607 F. Supp. 945
• Parties: Willie Lee PREE, Plaintiff, v. STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP., Ed Palmer, Roland Christensen, Plasterer & Cement Masons Local Union 241, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

607 F. Supp. 945

Willie Lee PREE, Plaintiff, v. STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP., Ed Palmer, Roland Christensen, Plasterer & Cement Masons Local Union 241, Defendants.

No. CV-R-83-17-ECR.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

March 20, 1985.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

G.C. Backus, Reno, Nev., for plaintiff.

Stephen S. Kent, Reno, Nev., for Stone & Webster, Ed Palmer and Roland Christensen.

Patrick D. Dolan, Reno, Nev., for Christensen and Plasterer & Cement Masons.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

EDWARD C. REED, Jr., District Judge.

Plaintiff, a black male, seeks relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq) for claimed unlawful and discriminatory discharge by defendant Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. (Stone & Webster). He also claims defendant Plasterers and Cement Masons Union Local 241 (Union) and defendant Roland Christensen, business agent for the Union, discriminated against him by not appointing him as job steward. Plaintiff alleges such discrimination occurred because of his race.

Jurisdiction of this Court is based upon 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4). Plaintiff previously exhausted his administrative remedies.

A bench trial of this action was held on December 27, 1984. Testimony and evidence were received on behalf of plaintiff and defendants.

On October 1, 1980, plaintiff was dispatched by the Union to Valmy, Nevada, to go to work as a cement mason for Stone & Webster. That defendant was constructing a new power generating plant for Sierra Pacific Power Company. Plaintiff worked on the job continuously until he was laid off on August 14, 1981.

While plaintiff did not have formal school or apprenticeship training as a cement mason, he learned on the job (while working as a laborer) from skilled masons and became a competent mason. He obtained his "book" entitling him to work as a member of the Union in 1967. He worked more or less steadily as a mason out of the Union hiring hall after that time until his said termination by Stone & Webster.

One of the principal questions to be resolved by the Court is the level of skill which plaintiff achieved as a cement mason, and whether his skill was as good as, or superior to, that of other masons who were his junior in seniority as employees of Stone & Webster. They were retained in employment at the time plaintiff was laid off.

During the year 1981 there was a considerable turnover and reduction in all crafts at Valmy as the first phase of construction of the power plant neared completion. The custom of both the employers and the Union in this area is that, where lay offs are to take place, the employees with least seniority as employees of the company are the first to be laid off.

By the last week of July 1981, the cement mason crew at the Valmy job consisted of defendant Ed Palmer (foreman), James Brown (job steward), Matthew Pribitnowsky, and plaintiff. At that time Mr. Brown retired, and Mr. Pribitnowsky was laid off. Within a week or so, at Mr. Palmer's request on behalf of Stone & Webster, the Union dispatched Leonard F. Hughes and Leslie T. Noland to Valmy as replacement masons. Mr. Palmer specifically requested both Mr. Hughes and Mr. Noland by name to be sent to the job. He was permitted to do so under the agreements between Stone & Webster and the Union. At that point in time, plaintiff was first in seniority on the crew after the foreman, Mr. Palmer. Yet on August 14, 1981, Plaintiff was terminated in a discharge identified as on account of a "Reduction in Force" (RIF).

The decision to terminate plaintiff was made by Mr. Palmer, acting in behalf of Stone and Webster, in the course and scope of his duties as foreman. He testified that the reason he chose plaintiff for termination ahead of Mr. Hughes and Mr. Noland was that plaintiff was less skilled than the other two new crew members in the then scheduled upcoming work of finishing cement slabs and floors. He admitted plaintiff was highly skilled in cement work in walls, grinding and patchwork, but claimed in his testimony that such work on the project had, at that time, largely been completed. He claimed that plaintiff did not do slab and floor work efficiently and that he was too slow.

Mr. David Rivers, an engineer for Stone & Webster, also offered some uncomplimentary testimony concerning plaintiff's skills as cement mason. However, the extent to which Mr. Rivers is relying on personal observation or just on what Mr. Palmer told him is unclear.

As mentioned above, Mr. Palmer asked for Mr. Hughes and Mr. Noland by name when he asked for cement masons to be sent to the job to replace Mr. Brown and Mr. Pribitnowsky. He claims to have had extensive knowledge of the excellence of their work. He asserts it was on the basis of this knowledge that he sent for these two men, and also on the same basis that he retained them at the time he discharged plaintiff. Mr. Hughes had been working on the Valmy job for Stone & Webster at various times in 1981, and Mr. Palmer also claims to have previously observed Mr. Hughes' work for another contractor on the Valmy smokestack. On the other hand, Mr. Noland had not worked on the Valmy job in 1981, and the evidence is questionable as to any previous work by him on the project. While the Court might conclude that Mr. Hughes was a better craftsman than plaintiff, there is little credible evidence, on the basis of what Mr. Palmer had been able to observe, that Mr. Noland was a better cement mason than plaintiff.

The testimony of all other witnesses was that plaintiff was skilled in all areas of the work of a concrete mason, and did not have the deficiencies in ability which were claimed by Mr. Palmer. Defendant Roland Christensen has been Secretary-Treasurer of the Union and its Business Agent for 17 years. He never received any complaints relative to plaintiff's skills. It appears that Mr. Christensen has, through all the time plaintiff was a member of the Union, been responsible to dispatch masons to the jobs. Therefore, he would have heard about any complaints made by employers or others relative to plaintiff's skills. There is no sign that plaintiff was dispatched to jobs for assignment only in patching, wall or grinding work. Rather, the preponderance of the evidence is that plaintiff worked on all kinds of jobs and assignments.

James Brown, called as a witness by the Union, testified he had not heard any complaints about plaintiff's ability or skills as a cement mason. Mr. Brown worked side by side with plaintiff for nearly ten months at Valmy. He was a long time skilled cement mason and would have observed deficiencies in plaintiff's skills or that plaintiff was assigned only to certain types of work.

James E. Smith was called as a witness by plaintiff. He is an experienced foreman of labor crews which handle the pouring of concrete. He has observed the work of many cement masons. Mr. Smith worked on the same Valmy assignments as plaintiff and had ample opportunity to observe plaintiff's work. His testimony was to the effect that plaintiff had proper skills as a mason.

Plaintiff was a concrete finishing foreman on the high rise Harrah's parking garage on Second Street in Reno. It is a large concrete structure. He also worked as a cement mason on the Harrah's Center Street parking garage, the Reno Hilton hotel, the Veterans Administration hospital addition, and the Reno-Sparks sewer plant.

The preponderance of the evidence is that plaintiff was a skilled cement mason and that he was qualified to do the work which Stone & Webster had scheduled to be done at the time of his termination. Further, the evidence demonstrates that plaintiff was at least as skilled as the two crew members who were retained at the time of his discharge.

Plaintiff has an admitted history of narcolepsy since 1945. According to the testimony of all the witnesses (including plaintiff), except Mr. Palmer, this affliction did not affect plaintiff's work on the job as a cement mason. The effect of the narcolepsy was that plaintiff had a tendency to fall asleep after being on the job and then taking a break, such as for lunch. Apparently this did happen to plaintiff on a number of occasions during breaks. Mr. Palmer claims he found plaintiff asleep "on the job a couple of times." Nevertheless, the Court finds from the evidence that the narcolepsy did not adversely affect plaintiff's job performance.

While there were few blacks on the Valmy job, there is no credible evidence that Stone & Webster had any company policy or custom to discriminate in employment practices on a basis of race. Reporting methods of Stone & Webster indicate a consciousness of the desirability of treating all persons on an equal basis.

After plaintiff was terminated, James E. Smith inquired of Mr. Palmer and the other cement masons as to why plaintiff had been laid off. No one would give him an explanation. The reason given by Stone & Webster has been RIF. Mr. Smith's testimony was that it appeared to him to be a one person RIF. The RIF contention doesn't hold up under scrutiny, and the Court finds it to be pretextual. The cement finishing crew was not being reduced in numbers to a point where it was necessary to lay off plaintiff. Plaintiff had the most seniority on the crew, next to the foreman, and the crew was retained for a considerable period of time thereafter at a level of at least the foreman and two masons. There was no RIF.

The somewhat offhand claim that plaintiff was discharged because of his narcolepsy appears pretextual as well. The preponderance of the evidence shows that plaintiff was not discharged because he was unable to perform the job assignments as well as the other two more recently hired masons. The custom of both Stone & Webster and the Union was that the last hired was first to be laid off. On that basis plaintiff ought to have been retained.

While the work of cement masons (and this applies to plaintiff as...