Watkins v. BNSF Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21 C 3547 |
| Parties | SHANDALE C. WATKINS, Plaintiff, v. BNSF RAILWAY CO., a Delaware corporation BRANDON MULBERRY, individually and in his official capacity as Chief Mechanical Officer of Chicago Div., MICHAEL HAYNES, individually and in his official capacity as GM KEVIN BARTEE, individually and in his official capacity as Asst. GM, ANNA HOSMER, individually and in her official capacity as Developer, and RAYMOND KLOBERDANZ, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Plaintiff Shandale C. Watkins alleges that his employer, BNSF Railway Co., and five current or former BNSF employees discriminated against him on the bases of race and age in a variety of ways. BNSF and two individual Defendants have moved to dismiss the claims against them. For the reasons explained here, their motion [19] is granted in part and denied in part.
At this stage, the court accepts all factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Bilek v. Fed. Ins. Co., 8 F.4th 581, 586 (7th Cir. 2021).
Defendant BNSF Railway Co. is a freight railroad company that provides railway services nationally, including in the Chicago area. (First Amended Complaint [16] (hereinafter “FAC”) ¶ 2.) Plaintiff Watkins is a Black male who has worked for Defendant BNSF since 2013.[1] (Id. ¶¶ 1, 13 116.)
Watkins works in BNSF's Chicago Division at a facility known as “Chicago Corwith.” (Id. ¶ 14.) Defendant Michael Haynes, a Black male, was at all relevant times the General Manager at Chicago Corwith, and Defendant Kevin Bartee, a Black male, was the Assistant General Manager at Chicago Corwith. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.) Both Haynes and Bartee had hiring and decisionmaking authority for promotions and discipline. (Id.) The court refers to BNSF, Haynes, and Bartee (i.e., the Movants) together as “Defendants.”
Watkins has named three additional Defendants in the FAC, but has provided no proof of service for these individuals (even for the initial complaint), and none of them has appeared in the case. (See Def.'s Mot. [20] at 1 n.1.) Those additional Defendants include Brandon Mulberry, a white male, who was a Chief Mechanical Officer in the Chicago Division and who had hiring and decision-making authority for promotions and discipline; Anna Hosmer, a female alleged to be “Asian/Latino,” who was the “Developer” assigned to Watkins at Chicago Corwith and who had input in decisions related to promotions and discipline; and Raymond Kloberdanz, a white male employee of BNSF. (FAC ¶¶ 3, 6-7, 9.)
BNSF hired Watkins in February 2013 as a “Mechanical Carman.” (FAC ¶ 13.) Although Watkins apparently still holds that position on paper, he alleges that he has effectively been working as a “Relief Foreman” since around October 2015. (Id.) Compared to BNSF's other Relief Foremen, Watkins says that he has been compensated with less money and given less favorable working schedules. (Id. ¶¶ 16-21.)
Between 2015 and 2019, Watkins repeatedly but unsuccessfully sought a promotion to “Mechanical Foreman,” a position for which he believes he is qualified based on, among other things, his educational background and his experience working as a de facto Relief Foreman. (Id. ¶¶ 22, 25-28, 38.) Watkins says he has applied for the Mechanical Foreman position more than 15 times, and he implies he would have submitted still more applications were it not for the fact that, contrary to an established BNSF practice of posting job openings online, BNSF promoted several individuals to the Mechanical Foreman slot without posting the positions first. (Id. ¶¶ 2224.) Watkins alleges that non-Black applicants with less experience than he had were selected for these positions. (Id. ¶¶ 29-31, 40-42, 48.) One such applicant, who Watkins himself had previously trained, was promoted to Mechanical Foreman despite missing his initial job interview.[2](Id. ¶¶ 56-58.)
Watkins repeatedly complained to BNSF management about being passed over for promotion. (Id. ¶¶ 37, 49.) In 2021, he talked with both Defendant Haynes and Defendant Bartee about promotion opportunities. (Id. ¶ 52.) They advised him that there was currently no room in the budget but that, if a Mechanical Foreman position opened up, they would let him know. (Id. ¶ 53.) Soon thereafter, Defendant Haynes announced at a meeting that some Mechanical Foreman positions would soon be opening up.[3] (Id. ¶ 54.)
Watkins makes various allegations about harassment, unfair treatment, and retaliation he has experienced on the job. (See FAC ¶¶ 60-112.)
In September 2018, Watkins was involved in some kind of accident involving a truck-he offers no details-but there was no damage to the truck, and he reported the incident right away. (Id. ¶¶ 63-66.) Defendants Bartee and Haynes initiated an investigation, and Watkins was given a “Level S 30-day Record Suspension.” (Id. ¶¶ 65-66.) He was also “assessed a one-year review period.” (Id. ¶ 66.) Sometime later, during a conversation in the cafeteria, one of Watkins's co- workers, Phil, mentioned that Watkins was still subject to his Level S discipline. (Id. ¶¶ 60-61.) Phil reported that he had learned this information from yet another coworker, Ed. (Id. ¶ 62.) Neither of these individuals should have known about his discipline, according to Watkins, and Watkins believes that BNSF “management discussed it with Watkins' co-workers, in an effort to humiliate and embarrass Watkins in front of his co-workers, and unfairly and negatively affect Watkins' work record so as to justify the failure to promote him to Mechanical Foreman.” (Id. ¶ 67.)
Watkins also makes allegations related to Defendant Hosmer, who served as a “Developer/Mentor” in the “Foreman Development Program.” (Id. ¶¶ 69-74.) Watkins alleges, without specifics, that Hosmer “was reckless and repeatedly did things designed to get Watkins in trouble.” (Id. ¶ 70.) According to Watkins, Hosmer told him that he would never be promoted to Mechanical Foreman, a statement he believes was based on his race. (Id. ¶ 71.) And he says, again without specifics, that Hosmer's (unidentified) actions interfered with his “efforts to get promoted to Mechanical Foreman.” (Id. ¶ 73.) Watkins alleges that he repeatedly “reported Hosmer's recklessness” to Defendant Bartee, who rejected his requests for a different mentor.[4](Id. ¶ 72.)
Watkins has not identified the dates of his complaints regarding Hosmer, but he suggests that BNSF retaliated against him for those complaints. Specifically, he says that Defendant BNSF repeatedly began training novice journeymen for the Mechanical Foreman position even though Watkins himself had been a journeyman for several years and had not yet been promoted. (Id. ¶¶ 75-76.) Relatedly, Watkins says he frequently had to train employees who were eventually promoted over him, a situation that he found humiliating and frustrating. (Id. ¶¶ 68, 76.)
On one “[m]ore recent[]” occasion, Watkins describes another incident in which he was disciplined for an accident caused by another employee. (Id. ¶¶ 84-92.) Again with few details, Watkins says that a white male crane operator caused an accident when the sun was in the operator's eyes, and the operator should have stopped the crane operation for this reason. (Id. ¶ 84.) As a result of this incident, Watkins was nearly injured, his truck was damaged, and he was taken to a hospital because he was so shaken. (Id. ¶¶ 84, 87.) While Watkins was hospitalized, Defendant Bartee “harassed” him by requesting that he take a drug test. (Id. ¶ 88.) Watkins was eventually “charged with a rules violation and required to undergo investigation,” but the crane operator was not subject to investigation or discipline. (Id. ¶¶ 85-86.)
Watkins claims that this differential treatment, and other discipline that he received, either was based on his age and race or was intended as retaliation for his previous complaints about discrimination. (Id. ¶¶ 90-92.) More broadly, Watkins says that his complaints about harassment were met with retaliation in many forms, such as disciplinary actions, additional work assignments, and the requirement that he train new hires. (Id. ¶ 93.)
The final specific incident cited in the FAC involved Defendant Kloberdanz. Watkins alleges that in July 2021, while he was in his work vehicle, Defendant Kloberdanz intentionally sprayed him in the face with “an unknown liquid substance” from a fire extinguisher. (Id. ¶¶ 102, 107.) Watkins reported the incident to BNSF management and filed a police report, but he says that the BNSF officer who investigated the incident attempted to persuade him not to press charges against Kloberdanz. (Id. ¶¶ 103, 105.) Kloberdanz has been allowed to continue working, even while criminal charges are pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County. (Id. ¶¶ 104, 107, 109.) Watkins says that he is “frustrated, upset and embarrassed” by the fact that “each day he comes to work he hears Kloberdanz laughing with other co-workers like this incident never happened.” (Id. ¶¶ 108-09.) Watkins has been seeking therapy and other medical treatment as a result of this incident. (Id. ¶ 109.)
Watkins filed an EEOC charge on February 2, 2021, alleging race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and age-based discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C §§ 621 et seq. (“ADEA”). He alleged in his EEOC charge that he had been “subjected to denial...
To continue reading
Request your trial