Robinson v. Reg'l Transp. Dist., Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-2870-WJM-MJW
| Decision Date | 13 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-2870-WJM-MJW |
| Parties | LENWOOD ROBINSON, individually, Plaintiff, v. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Plaintiff Lenwood Robinson ("Robinson") brings this action against his former employer Defendant Regional Transportation District ("RTD") under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 24-34-401 et seq. ("CADA"), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.1 (ECF No. 5.) Robinson alleges that RTD discriminated against him on the basis of race and retaliated against him for engaging in protected activities.
Currently pending before the Court is RTD's Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Motion") on Robinson's claims. (ECF No. 78.) For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part. Moving forward, Robinson will have a sole claim for under Title VII and CADA for retaliatory termination.
Robinson, an African-American male, started as a Service Desk Analyst in the RTD Information Technology Division on September 12, 2013. Robinson had previously worked for RTD as a bus operator. During the relevant time period, there were three Service Desk Analysts, Robinson, Moumita Das, and Asaundra Rhymer. (ECF No. 78-3 at 8, 12.) The Service Desk Analyst position required providing support to end-users for PC hardware, operating systems, software applications, and communication devices.
Robinson had disagreements with Das. Robinson testified that Das felt the need to regularly monitor and change his work, even though he was familiar with RTD systems and hired before Das. (ECF No. 78-1 at 14-15.) He also testified that Das introduced errors to his work and, in turn, created additional work for the service desk team. (Id. at 18-19.)
On September 5, 2014, Robinson informed the IT Service Delivery Manager Todd Peterson3 about his issues with Ms. Das. (ECF No. 115-2 at 2; ECF No. 78-3 at 13.) In an e-mail, Robinson explained a particular issue and noted his ongoingconcerns about Das's interference with his work. (ECF No. 115-2 at 2.) Robinson also talked to Peterson about Das's apparent interference and auditing. (ECF No. 78-1 at 14-15.) Peterson and Robinson apparently met to discuss the issues, but there is no documentation to suggest that Peterson took any action on Robinson's complaint or that Das was disciplined at that time. (ECF No. 115-1 at 2, ¶¶ 12-13; ECF No. 115-2; ECF No. 78-1 at 100.) Robinson did not raise the issue with anyone in the human resources department. (ECF No. 78-1 at 15.) RTD acknowledges that Robinson raised his concerns about Das to management in September 2014. (ECF No. 124 at 4, ¶ 27.)
Neither party affirmatively cites any other record or allegation of any Robinson's complaint to a manager or supervisor about Das between September 2014 and June 2015. However, from the documents submitted in support or opposition to this Motion, it is clear that Peterson was aware of an ongoing conflict between Robinson and Das. Specifically, Robinson testified that on May 8, 2015, there had been a "loud discussion" and "a blowup" at the service desk after Das had "audited my work once again." (ECF No. 78-1 at 15.) In response, Peterson proposed meeting to discuss. (Id.; ECF No. 78-6.) Robinson stated that he would raise the issue with a senior manager and, according to Robinson, Peterson discouraged him from doing so. (ECF No. 78-1 at 15.) Robinson accuses Peterson of favoring Das because of their friendship. (Id.) It is unclear from the record how or whether this conflict stemming from the May 8 incident was resolved.
On June 5, 2015, Robinson e-mailed Aprajit Desai—another RTD employee and Das's spouse—about Das's interference with Robinson's work. In the e-mail, Robinson explained that an "ongoing conflict on the Service Desk" between Das and Robinsonwas "adversely affecting our professional relationships with each other and our co-workers." (ECF No. 78-5 at 2.) He explained that he did not want to involve senior managers "in such a trivial matter but I need to be able to do my job without her interfering." (Id.) Robinson also added "[a]s her husband I am asking you to please ask her to stop with the auditing and correcting of my work." (Id.) Robinson also called Desai and left a voicemail.
That same day, Desai informed the human resources department about Robinson's e-mail and phone call. Peterson summoned Robinson to his office and tried to discuss the email. Robinson got upset during the meeting and left Peterson's office.
On June 10, 2015, Peterson prepared and sent a m emorandum (the "June 10 Memo") to Robinson, Robinson's personnel file, and human resources department detailing Peterson's concerns with Robinson's performance. (ECF No. 78-6 at 2.) The June 10 Memo identified two primary issues with Robinson's performance: (1) "lack of respect and professionalism given to team members," and (2) "lack of respect and professionalism given to management team." (Id.) Under the first issue, Peterson further identified two sub-issues: "voicing concerns in a tone and at a level that can be easily overheard by others," and "voicing concerns to the wrong people, including outside our team." Peterson cited as an example Robinson's e-mail and phone contact with Desai. The second issue concerned Robinson "walking out in the middle of conversations and meetings with Management." Robinson apparently had, on two occasions, refused to discuss personnel issues with Peterson. The first time was after the May 8 "blowup;" the second after Robinson was summoned to Peterson's office on June 5 to discuss the e-mail and call to Desai. The June 10 Memo also explained thatfailure to correct performance issues could result in further disciplinary action including termination of employment. (Id. at 3.)
Also on June 10, 2018, RTD issued Das a "counseling memo" for auditing and correcting the work of a coworker. (ECF No. 78-2 at 10.) Robinson was not informed because of the confidential nature of employee discipline. (Id. at 10-11.)
On June 8, 2015—around the time that Robinson e-mailed Desai and Peterson issued the June 10 Memo—Robinson submitted an internal job application for a Computer Support Analyst ("CSA") position. The CSA position involved planning, installing, configuring, and programming proprietary micro-processing work stations and coordinating installation, maintenance, and repair of workstation hardware. (ECF No. 78-8 at 2-3.) The job required a bachelor's degree in computer science, mathematics, management information systems, or similar field; one year of experience in installation and use of computers and/or office automation systems and kiosk-based computer systems; two years of experience with data communications, micro-computer functions/characteristics, and hardware/software architecture; two years experience with testing procedures and safe practices; and proficiency in software packages, operating systems, and data processing documentation techniques. It also required the ability "to communicate effectively, orally and in writing . . . [and] use sound judgment." (Id. at 3.) Alternatively, an applicant could have "an equivalent combination of education, experience, knowledge, skills, and abilities."
RTD received Robinson's application on June 9. Bill Baker was the supervisor for the CSA position and the person responsible for hiring. Roger Vesley, a humanresources analyst, was involved in reviewing applications and the interview process. On June 30, 2015, Robinson's application was terminated because, according to RTD, he was not qualified based on his prior experience. (ECF No. 78-13 at 2.) Robinson contends that he was indeed qualified for the position. (ECF No. 115 at 9, ¶ 66; ECF No. 78-7 at 15-16.)
Two candidates were selected for the CSA position: Brian Cook, a white male with many years of relevant experience in desktop support, and Yolanda Bell, a mixed-race (Asian and Caucasian) female who had previously interned for Baker. (ECF No. 78-2 at 36, 38; ECF No. 79-1 (resume of Brian Cook); ECF No. 79-2 (resume of Yolanda Bell)).
The parties disagree about Robinson's qualifications, Bell's qualifications, and the relative qualifications of the two. (Compare ECF No. 78 at 7, ¶¶ 29-31 with ECF No. 115 at 9, ¶ 67.)4 Complicating this dispute is RTD's lack of response to Robinson's "statement of additional material facts that are not in dispute" that Robinson did, and Bell did not, have the education or experience required for the position. (ECF No. 115 at 9, ¶¶ 66-67.) The Court is thus left to parse through the disagreement on relative qualifications.
The following facts are a summary of Bell's qualifications. Bell did not have a degree in one of the required fields, but was expected to earn a bachelor of sciencedegree in Information Technology from Colorado Technical University in August 2015, around the time that the CSA position would begin. (ECF No. 79-2 at 2.) Bell's resume states that she completed certificate courses in "Networking Technology/Cisco Networking" and "Computer Information Technology" at Fayetteville Technical Community College. (Id.) She was not an RTD employee at the time of her application, but had previously interned for RTD. (Id.) Between 2005 and 2012, Bell served as a psychological operations specialist for the U.S. Army, and later as an instructor in the U.S. Army Reserve at Fort Bragg, NC. (Id.) As a psychological operations specialist, Bell had "collaborated in the development and implementation of initial networking equipment and infrastructure." (Id.; ECF No. 78-2 at 37.) At the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, Heather...
To continue reading
Request your trial