Wadas v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIV. NO. 18-00312 LEK-KJM |
| Parties | SUSAN WADAS, Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
Before the Court is Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc.'s ("Delta" or "Defendant") Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion"), filed on January 22, 2020.1 [Dkt. no. 77.] Plaintiff Susan Wadas ("Plaintiff") filed her memorandum in opposition on July 10, 2020, and Defendant filed its reply in opposition on July 17, 2020. [Dkt. nos. 98, 102.] This matter came on for hearing on July 31, 2020. On August 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a supplemental memorandum in opposition ("Plaintiff's Supplement"), and Defendant filed its response to Plaintiff's supplemental memorandum ("Defendant's Supplement") on August 31,2020.2 [Dkt. nos. 113, 116.] On October 22, 2020, an entering order was issued informing the parties of this Court's rulings on the Motion. [Dkt. no. 119.] This Order supersedes that entering order. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion is granted, and summary judgment is hereby granted in favor of Defendant as to all of Plaintiff's claims in this case.
Plaintiff's employment with Delta began in 2008. [Def.'s Concise Statement of Facts in Supp. of Motion for Summary Judgment ("Def.'s CSOF"), filed 1/22/20 (dkt. no. 78), at ¶ 4; Pltf.'s concise statement ("Pltf.'s CSOF"), filed 7/10/20 (dkt. no. 99), at Response ¶ 4 ( Def.'s ¶ 4 is undisputed).] Plaintiff, an aircraft mechanic, began a Delta internship in Fall 2008, in Atlanta. [Pltf.'s CSOF, Decl. of Susan Wadas ( ) at ¶¶ 4-5.] Plaintiff bid on an open position in Honolulu for an aircraft mechanic position on the "international line," i.e., the group of mechanics who worked on aircraft that flew internationally. ( )) On August 1, 2009, she was informed that she was selected for the position, but Delta wanted her to go through more training before she went to Honolulu.3 [Id. at 27.] In August and September 2009, Plaintiff "was in 767 school," and she "was in 757 school" in either October or November 2009. [Id. at 28.]
Plaintiff states that, when she was still in Atlanta training for her transfer to Honolulu, she was told by Tim Donahue, someone from Honolulu who was in her training class, that the male mechanics were not happy about her transfer. She reported it by email to someone named Paul,4 but he said what Donahue told her was not true, and she did not have to worry about it. Plaintiff no longer has that email because it was thrown away when her work locker was cleared out. .] When she came to Honolulu, Plaintiff heard from multiple mechanics that Paul Fugere had said women did not belong on the maintenance line. Plaintiff did not believe she heard that before she came to Honolulu, and she never askedFugere about the statement. [Id. at 65-66.] Plaintiff did not know whether the statement was directed to her specifically or was about women in general. [Id. at 70-71.] Plaintiff also stated that, one summer, Fugere called her into his office to tell her some of the men complained that she had body odor. [Id. at 72.] Plaintiff also relies on a January 2011 email chain between Fugere and Resil Lasam, the "Duty Manager - ALT Intl Line Mtc." See Kupau Decl., Exh. R (emails from to January 6 to 12, 2011). Lasam stated Plaintiff "did not officially belong to us," and Fugere responded "I wish she didn't belong to me either." [Id. at DELTA_000001379.] Lasam stated, "I know how you feel." [Id.]
"In 2011, Carter offered Plaintiff the 'honorable' position of Safety Chair and invited her to attend a managers' meeting in Portland, which was a 'very positive thing' for Plaintiff." [Def.'s CSOF at ¶ 17; Pltf.'s CSOF at Response ¶ 17-19 ().5] There, Plaintiff met Jack LaPalm, Delta's Station Manager in Portland, and he told her he would help her become a lead. In addition, in February 2012, Carter sent Plaintiff to obtain hercertification to service Boeing 747s. [Def.'s CSOF at ¶¶ 18-19; Pltf.'s CSOF at Response ¶ 17-19.]
During her employment, Plaintiff experienced multiple difficulties with Justin Keller ("Keller"), an aircraft technician. The parties agree that:
-"In August 2010, . . . Keller complained about Plaintiff . . . driving fast while talking on the phone, and Plaintiff complained soon after that Keller made extended stops, drove too slowly, had 'psychological problems,' and lacked 'full mental capabilities.'" [Def.'s CSOF at ¶ 6; Pltf.'s CSOF at Response ¶ 6-9 ( Defendant's ¶¶ 6 to 9 are "Undisputed").]
-In January 2011, Plaintiff complained that Keller assigned her to repair an aircraft toilet. Although such repairs were within Plaintiff's job duties, she had never performed the repair prior to that instance. During the investigation conducted by Human Resources ("HR") Manager, Lisa Todd ("Todd"), Plaintiff complained that the toilet which Keller assigned her to replace was on an aircraft that she was not assigned to, and she was left alone, even though she did not know how to perform the repair. [Def.'s CSOF at ¶¶ 7-9; Pltf.'s CSOF at Response ¶ 6-9.]
-Todd ultimately concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support Plaintiff's complaint that Keller treated Plaintiff unfairly because of Plaintiff's gender. [Def.'s CSOF at ¶ 13; Pltf.'s CSOF at Response ¶ 13.]
In the statement he submitted to Todd, Keller reported having "problems with [Plaintiff] understanding that were [sic] all a team and that each plane is actually everybody's plane." According to Keller, he assigned Plaintiff to the toilet repair because he "believed that it was a good opportunity for her to gain some experience," since she was "new to maintenance" and "everyone else on duty ha[d] over 5 years of service with Delta."7 [Id. at DELTA_000001122.] According to Keller, he did several things to assist Plaintiff with the repair, including pulling paperwork for her to follow, removing the shroud, answering her questions, and arranging for the delivery of the replacement toilet to the aircraft. In addition to the period when Plaintiff knew Keller was in the aircraft, there was also a lengthy period of time when Keller was sitting near the lavatory but could not be seen by Plaintiff from inside. [Id. at DELTA_000001123-25.] Keller acknowledged a personality conflict and friction between him and Plaintiff, but he denied that gender was a factor.8 [Id. at DELTA_000001129.] Five months earlier, Plaintiff told Kellershe thought she was not welcome at the station because she was a woman, but Keller told her he did not think that was true. Keller did not realize until January 6, 2011 that Plaintiff made the complaint about the lavatory assignment because she believed the assignment was the result of differential treatment based on her gender. [Id.]
During her deposition, Todd testified that, in connection with one of the investigations into Plaintiff's complaints regarding Keller, Plaintiff identified her supervisor, Alex Pacheco ("Pacheco"), and someone named "Jake" as potential witnesses who could support her complaints. [Rand Motion Decl., Exh. F (Todd Depo.) at 135-36.] According to Todd, she spoke to Pacheco, and he believed that Plaintiff was being harassed or discriminated against, but he had not witnessed any specific incidents. [Id. at 136-37.] Pacheco told Todd that Plaintiff was perceived as lacking skills and others seemed unwilling to work with her because she was a woman. [Id. at 179.] According to Todd, Delta "attempted to interview Jake, and he said he had no information to offer." [Id. at 136.] Todd could not remember which investigation the two interviews were related to, but Todd acknowledged that, between 2010 and 2013, Plaintiff made multiple reports or complaints about being harassed, intimidated, or discriminated against because of her gender. [Id. at 135-36.]
In all of the investigations, HR could not conclude that Plaintiff was sexually harassed or discriminated against, but Todd "believe[d] that [Keller] was coached, on one or more occasions, regarding being difficult, being un-collegial . . . even disrespectful" toward Plaintiff.9 [Id. at 142.]
In her summary regarding Plaintiff's complaint about being directed to replace the aircraft toilet, Todd wrote: "The possibility exists that the Station Mgr may have created an environment that is unwelcoming to woman given his some [sic] recent comments he has made to his peers." [Kupau Decl., Exh. G (Todd Depo.), Exh. 14 () at DELTA_000001395, ¶ 5.10] Todd confirmed that this referred to Fugere, but she did not have a specific or general recollection of what the comments were. Todd did not recall the results of any investigation into Fugere's unwelcoming comments, and she did not believe he was suspended. [Kupau Decl., Exh. G (Todd Depo.) at 184-85.]Fredrikson told Todd that Fugere's "conduct, in his stray comment about Ms. Wadas during the conference call, premature signing off on Ms. Wadas' LQs, and failure to effectively address her performance issues with her need to be addressed with Mr. Fugere." [Kupau Decl., Exh. G, Exh. 19 at DELTA_000001098.] Plaintiff argues Todd's testimony and her summary show that "Delta's HR management knew about [her] mistreatment and Fugere's unwelcoming environment for women." [Pltf.'s CSOF at ¶ 18.]
In December...
To continue reading
Request your trial