U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Wedco, Inc.

• Decision Date: 04 December 2014
• Docket Number: No. 3:12–cv–00523–RCJ–VPC.,3:12–cv–00523–RCJ–VPC.
• Parties: U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. WEDCO, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

65 F.Supp.3d 993

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff

v.WEDCO, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant.

No. 3:12–cv–00523–RCJ–VPC.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

Signed Dec. 4, 2014.

Derek W. Li, Sue J. Noh, Anna Park, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Los Angeles, CA, Elizabeth A. Naccarato, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff.

Anthony L. Hall, Rico Cordova, Holland & Hart LLP, Reno, NV, for Defendant.

ORDER

ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.

This case arises from Defendant Wedco, Inc.'s (“Wedco”) alleged violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Pending before the Court is Wedco's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 108) and its Motion to Seal (ECF No. 106) portions of the summary judgment motion. Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Wedco's Equitable Affirmative Defenses (ECF No. 109) and a Motion for Summary Judgment on Wedco's Procedural Affirmative Defenses (ECF No. 110). The Court has heard oral arguments and is now prepared to make its ruling.

I. BACKGROUND

Wedco is an electrical parts distributor that operates in Northern Nevada. It is of moderate size with approximately sixty employees. (Stoltz Dep. 55:2–4, Ex. 1, ECF No. 108–1). Larry Mitchell is an African–American who worked for Wedco from October 2007 to July 25, 2008, initially as a temporary stocker in the warehouse and then as a full-time deliveryman. (Mitchell Dep. 61:24–62:12, 74:25–76:5, ECF No. 117–4). During his short time at Wedco, Mitchell was perceived as a good employee by his supervisor, Michael Potter. (Potter Dep. 74:22–75:4, Ex. 2, ECF No. 108–1). Mitchell received a pay increase and was even offered a promotion, which he turned down. (Id. at 193:1–15). Mitchell was given time off when requested, (Potter Dep. 137:16–25), and he generally had an amicable relationship with most of his co-workers at Wedco. (See Mitchell Dep. 113:23–114:1 (planning a fishing trip with his co-workers); Gil Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 117–18 (visiting co-workers in receiving area to socialize)).

Near the beginning of Mitchell's employment, he noticed a hangman's noose hanging in the receiving area of Wedco's warehouse. (Mitchell Dep. 153:16–18). The noose allegedly disturbed Mitchell, though he said nothing because he believed it to be merely a Halloween decoration. (Id. at 70:15–24). The noose was not taken down after the holiday, however. As time passed, Mitchell saw the noose whenever he chose to visit the receiving area. (Mitchell Dep. 71:16–19; Gil Decl. ¶ 4). Mitchell never expressly complained about the noose to Potter or to April Martin, Wedco's Human Resources representative, nor did he indicate that he believed the noose held racial meaning. (Mitchell Dep. 400:4–403:10; Martin Dep. 145:15–25, ECF No. 108–1; Potter Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. 21, ECF No. 108–10). Instead, Mitchell secretly took pictures of the noose in front of a calendar so that he could track the months it hung in the warehouse. (Mitchell Dep. 181:7–10). At one point, Mitchell threw the noose away only to have it reappear in the same location. (Mitchell Dep. 150:2–4). Nevertheless, he still did not report his feelings about the noose to anyone at Wedco with supervisory authority. On another occasion, while Wedco employees were milling about the receiving bay, Mitchell made the comment that “someone should throw it away.” (Id. 400:4–403:10). Mitchell claims he was referring to the noose and that Potter was present at the time, but Mitchell is unsure whether Potter heard or understood the comment. (Id. ).

The EEOC alleges that on at least one occasion, Jacob Wilson (“Wilson”), Mitchell's co-worker at Wedco, told Mitchell that “this noose is for you.” (Mitchell Dep. 150:18–151:4). Mitchell again did not report this incident to Potter, Martin, or any other Wedco authority. (Mitchell Dep. 155:2–22). Wilson's position at Wedco was that of “lead-man,” which means he organized delivery schedules and interacted with Mitchell on a daily basis. (Wilson Dep. 262:2–24, Ex. 6, ECF No. 108–4). Wilson allegedly antagonized Mitchell on a routine basis. Mitchell claims that Wilson was “rude” and that he treated Mitchell “like shit.” (Mitchell Dep. 293:17–20, 305:24–306:1). For example, the EEOC alleges that Wilson denied Mitchell breaks, required him to ask permission to use the restroom, and moved his cellphone to another location. (Compl.¶ 13). Mitchell also claims that Wilson screamed profanity at him at least once, and that he kicked a “spool” over that Mitchell was loading onto his delivery truck. (Mitchell Dep. 290:20–25, 299:7–9). In contrast to his response to the noose, Mitchell reported Wilson's obnoxious behavior to Potter multiple times. (Id. at 290:17–19, 291:19–21, 293:13–16). After each report, Potter called Wilson in to discuss his behavior, after which Wilson's behavior would improve for a few days. (Id. at 291:11–292:7). Mitchell even invited Wilson to go fishing on one occasion, but Wilson turned him down. (Id. at 113:14–20). Mitchell was allegedly informed later that Wilson told a third-party that he was “not going to go fishing with no nigger.” (Mitchell Dep. 114:4–6). In Mitchell's presence, Wilson used the word “nigger” only once, when he was speaking about a homeless man outside Wedco's building. (Id. at 115:18–116:10). However, Wilson allegedly had a propensity to tell racial jokes, though those jokes were not directed at Mitchell and were also not made in Mitchell's presence. (Gil Decl. ¶ 6).

On July 25, 2008, Mitchell was preparing to leave the Wedco facility with a delivery when he was stopped by Todd Baker (“Baker”), another Wedco employee. (Baker Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 17, ECF No. 108–9). Baker asked whether Mitchell had reviewed the paperwork related to the delivery. (Id. ¶ 6). Believing that Baker was simply giving him a hard time, Mitchell made the comment that he ought to hit Baker with a forty pound concrete lid that Mitchell was carrying at the time. (Mitchell 269:16–21). Wilson overheard the comment and insisted that the two go talk to Martin. (Wilson Dep. 187:2–22). Mitchell refused to accompany Wilson to Martin's office and instead voluntarily left the premises. (Mitchell Dep. 269:22–270:7).

On August 21, 2008, Mitchell submitted an “Intake Inquiry Form” to the Nevada Equal Rights Commission (“NERC”) claiming that Wedco had discriminated against him based on his race, color, and age. (Intake Inquiry Form, Ex. 14, at 247, ECF No. 108–7). In the Form, Mitchell claimed that Wilson “would find any reason to harass [him]” and that Wilson would tell Mitchell that the “hangs man noose [was] for [him].” (Id. at 250). After meeting with an NERC intake offer, Mitchell filed his formal Charge of Discrimination (“Charge”) against Wedco with the NERC. (Charge of Discrimination, ECF No. 108–2). The Charge included four allegations against Wedco: (1) that Wilson moved Mitchell's phone so that their cellphones would not be next to one another; (2) that Mitchell was denied breaks; (3) that he was required to ask permission to use the bathroom; and (4) that a hangman's noose was displayed in the work area. (Id. at 6). Upon receiving the Charge, Wedco's Vice–President removed the noose and threw it away. (Stoltz Dep. 92:11–21). Wedco also responded to the Charge by denying the allegations of discrimination and harassment contained therein. After completing its investigation, the NERC transferred Mitchell's case to the EEOC. The EEOC then conducted an interview with Mitchell and determined that his complaints against Wedco had merit. Wedco and the EEOC engaged in conciliation negotiations, but when an agreement could not be reached, the EEOC decided to bring a lawsuit against Wedco.

On September 27, 2012, the EEOC filed its complaint alleging that Wedco subjected Mitchell to “harassment and disparate treatment on the basis of his race” constituting a racially hostile work environment, which led to Mitchell's constructive discharge. (Compl.¶ 13). Wedco initially moved for dismissal of the claims, which this Court denied. (ECF No. 17). Wedco now seeks summary judgment on the entirety of the case while the EEOC requests summary judgment on a number of Wedco's affirmative defenses.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A principal purpose of the summary judgment rule is to “isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A court grants summary judgment only if “the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In making this determination, the court “must draw all reasonable inferences supported by the evidence in favor of the non-moving party.” Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir.2002). “[T]his standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged 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, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Rather, only genuine issues of material facts are relevant to the summary judgment analysis. A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. “The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato Johnson, 212 F.3d 528, 531 (9th Cir.2000). The burden is met by demonstrating to the court “that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. This is done by citing to depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations, admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials. Fed.R.Civ.P....