Scott v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:19-cv-00044-KGB |
| Parties | Antoine SCOTT, Plaintiff v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
Antoine Scott, North Little Rock, AR, Pro Se.
Abtin Mehdizadegan, Caitlin A. Campbell, Nicholas C. R. Williams, IV, Cross, Gunter, Witherspoon & Galchus, P.C., Little Rock, AR, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Antoine Scott alleges claims of race discrimination and retaliation against defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union Pacific") in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII") and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-123-101 et seq. ("ACRA") (Dkt. No. 15, at 1). Mr. Scott also claims that Union Pacific subjected him to a hostile work environment because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C § 1981 (Dkt. No. 15, at 14-15). Before the Court is Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 45). Mr. Scott responded in opposition to the motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 53). Union Pacific replied to the response (Dkt. No. 58). For the reasons explained below, the Court determines that the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. ("RLA"), preempts and precludes Mr. Scotts’ race discrimination and retaliation claims. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Mr. Scott's race discrimination and retaliation claims and denies as moot Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment as to those claims (Dkt. No. 45). The Court determines that the RLA does not preempt and preclude Mr. Scott's hostile work environment claim. The Court, however, grants Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment as to Mr. Scott's hostile work environment claim (Dkt. No. 45).
Union Pacific filed a statement of undisputed facts (Dkt. No. 46). Mr. Scott filed an unsigned response to the statement of undisputed facts in which he admits some paragraphs, denies some paragraphs, neither admits not denies some paragraphs, and then admits in part and denies in part some paragraphs of Union Pacific's statement of undisputed facts (Dkt. No. 53, at 14-46).
Union Pacific addressed Mr. Scott's response to its statement of undisputed facts in its reply brief (Dkt. No. 58, at 2-11). Pursuant to Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Union Pacific moves to strike Mr. Scott's response to Union Pacific's statement of undisputed material facts that fail to satisfy the record citation requirements found in Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that fail to satisfy Local Rule 56.1 of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, and that fail to satisfy this Court's Orders (Dkt. No. 58, at 2). Union Pacific further objects to Mr. Scott's reliance on particular documents attached to his response to the motion for summary judgment because they are unsworn, unsigned, and in one case, undated witness statements and because the documents were never disclosed in discovery despite specific interrogatories requesting this information (Id. , at 2-3).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) requires that:
A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) :
If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may: (1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact; (2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion; (3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials—including the facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is entitled to it; or (4) issue any other appropriate order.
Local Rule 56.1(b) of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas requires a non-moving party to supply the Court with a statement of material facts "as to which it contends a genuine issue exists to be tried." See Jackson v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. , 643 F.3d 1081, 1088 (8th Cir. 2011).
The Court advised Mr. Scott that in responding to Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment he must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas (Dkt. No. 46). The Court specifically stated that his response should "include legal arguments, as well as affidavits or other evidence to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact that must be resolved at a hearing" and that he must file a "separate, short and concise statement of the material facts as to which [he] contends there is no genuine dispute to be tried." (Id. (emphasis added)). Mr. Scott did not file a separate statement of undisputed material facts in response Union Pacific's statement of undisputed facts, but he did respond to Union Pacific's statement of undisputed facts (Dkt. No. 53).
In his response to Union Pacific's statement of undisputed facts, Mr. Scott either does not respond to or neither admits nor denies the following paragraphs of Union Pacific's statement of undisputed facts: 76, 98, 102, 112, 136, 137, 141, and 142. Accordingly, the Court considers the following paragraphs undisputed for purposes of Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment: 76, 98, 102, 112, 136, 137, 141, and 142. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
Mr. Scott admits, in part, and denies, in part, the following paragraphs of Union Pacific's statement of undisputed facts: 2, 3, 10, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 48, 58, 85, 87, 101, 106, 109, 116, 135, 140, 148, and 151. Mr. Scott does not cite to evidence in the record, however, to support his denial of any of the paragraphs except for paragraph 48. A response that does not cite to evidence in the record does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). Accordingly, the Court considers the following paragraphs undisputed for purposes of Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment: 3, 10, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 58, 85, 87, 101, 106, 109, 116, 135, 140, 148, and 151. See Anuforo v. Comm'r , 614 F.3d 799, 807 (8th Cir. 2010) (); Davidson & Assocs. v. Jung , 422 F.3d 630, 638 (8th Cir. 2005) ().
Mr. Scott denies the following paragraphs of Union Pacific's statement of undisputed facts: 16, 26, 44, 45, 46, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 69 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 92, 93, 94, 97, 99, 104, 107, 108, 110, 114, 115, 117, 121, 122, 124, 125, 132, 134, 138, 144, 145, 149, and 150. Mr. Scott does not point to evidence in the record, however, to support his denial of any of the paragraphs except for paragraphs 57 and 63. A response that does not cite to evidence in the record does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). See also Anuforo , 614 F.3d at 807 ; Davidson & Assocs. , 422 F.3d at 638. Accordingly, the Court considers the following paragraphs undisputed for purposes of Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment: 16, 26, 44, 45, 46, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 69 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 92, 93, 94, 97, 99, 104, 107, 108, 110, 114, 115, 117, 121, 122, 124, 125, 132, 134, 138, 144, 145, 149, and 150.
Mr. Scott cites to the Yardmaster CBA to support his denial of paragraphs 48, 57, and 63 of Union Pacific's statement of undisputed facts. Accordingly, the Court denies Union Pacific's motion to strike Mr. Scott's responses to those statements of fact.
Mr. Scott attaches the following exhibits to his response to Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment: (1) undated letter from Richard B. Hayes III (Dkt. No. 53, at 3-4); (2) January 19, 2022, letter from William Stephens (Id. , at 5); (3) undated letter from Bill Gilmore (Id. , at 6); (4) screen shots of computer screen showing attempts to gain access to log into computers (Id. , at 7-9); (5) February 8, 2018, letter from Scott McMillan, Senior Analyst EEO at Union Pacific to Mr. Scott (Id. , at 10); (6) roster printed from yahoo email account on January 21, 2022 (Id. , at 11); and (7) printed weekly schedule with notes from Mr. Scott (Id. , at 12). Union Pacific argues that all of the attachments except for the screen shots from the computer screen and the letter from Mr. McMillan are incompetent for summary judgment purposes because they are not authenticated by being attached to an affidavit (Dkt. No. 58, at 8). Union Pacific maintains that the letters contain inadmissible hearsay, and the documents should be stricken from the record (Id. , at 10). Further, Union Pacific contends that it asked in discovery for any witness statements or other documents relating to the factual allegations contained in this lawsuit (Id. , at 10). Mr. Scott responded, "[n]ot [a]pplicable." (Id. ). Union Pacific contends that Mr. Scott did not supplement his responses to identify these documents or witness statements (Id. , at 11). Finally Union Pacific argues that the exhibits add nothing of substance beyond speculation and conjecture (Id. ).
The Court has reviewed the documents Mr. Scott attaches to his response to the motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial