Scudiero v. Radio One of Tex. Ii, LLC

• Decision Date: 14 August 2014
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION H-12-1088
• Parties: VINCE SCUDIERO and CHRISTEL THORNTON, Plaintiff, v. RADIO ONE OF TEXAS II, LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

VINCE SCUDIERO and CHRISTEL THORNTON, Plaintiff, v. RADIO ONE OF TEXAS II, LLC, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION H-12-1088

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

August 14, 2014

OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court in the above referenced cause, grounded in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. , Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Civil Rights Act of 1870, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and tortious interference with contract under Texas common law, are Defendant Radio One of Texas II, LLC's ("Radio One's") (1) motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Plaintiff Vincent Scudiero ("Scudiero")(instrument #35) and (2) motion for summary judgment as to the claims of Plaintiff Christel Thornton ("Thornton")(Scudiero and Thornton collectively, "Plaintiffs") (#36).

Scudiero, a Caucasian, male, senior account executive, formerly employed by Radio One, alleges reverse racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and § 1981. Thornton, formerly an African American account executive for Defendant, asserts claims for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and § 1981, and tortious interference with contractunder Texas common law.

After a careful review of Radio One's motions for summary judgment (#35 and 36), Plaintiffs' response (#37), Radio One's replies (#42 and 43), Plaintiffs' surreply to Radio One's reply to Plaintiffs' response to Radio One's motion for summary judgment regarding claims against Thornton (#45), Plaintiffs' supplemental response to Radio One's motion for summary judgment (#46), Plaintiffs' surreply to Radio One's reply to Plaintiffs' response to Radio One's motion for summary judgment regarding Scudiero (#48), and the applicable law, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have raised genuine issues of material fact with supporting evidence with regard to all of Radio One's arguments in its motions for summary judgment relating to Plaintiffs' claims under Title VII and Section 1981.

As for Thornton's claim for tortious interference with contract, with supporting evidence Radio One has argued that it fails as a matter of law because its conduct in interfering with Thornton's subsequent employment by CBS Radio was legally justified because Thornton executed a valid and enforceable Noncompetition Agreement with Radio One when she began her employment. #36, Ex. A, Thornton Dep. at 162:7-10 and Ex. 15 (Noncompetition Agreement). See, e.g., Texas Beef...