Williams v. City of Arvada
| Decision Date | 13 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-cv-02236-NYW |
| Parties | BRIAN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ARVADA, and DAN PUMPHREY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
This action comes before the court on Defendant City of Arvada and Dan Pumphrey's (“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Age Discrimination, Age Discrimination Plus, Aiding and Abetting Age Discrimination, and Intentional Interference of Contract Claims (“Motion to Dismiss” or “Motion”) [Doc. 13, filed October 15, 2021]. The court considers the Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and the Order of Reference dated October 6, 2021 [Doc 11]. See also [Doc. 7]. The court finds that oral argument would not materially assist in the resolution of the issues in the Motion. For the reasons explained herein, the court respectfully GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Motion to Dismiss.
This action arises from the termination of Plaintiff Brian Williams's (“Mr. Williams” or “Plaintiff”) employment from the City of Arvada (“City”). The following facts are drawn from the Complaint and Jury Demand (“Complaint”), [Doc. 1 filed August 17, 2021], and taken as true for the purposes of the instant Motion.
Mr Williams began his employment with the City's “street department” in 1988, working “principally on the concrete and asphalt crews.” [Doc. 1 at ¶ 4]. Specifically, Mr. Williams spent seventeen years of his 32-year tenure with the City working on the concrete crew. [Id. at ¶ 5]. In 2016, Mr. Williams injured his left shoulder at work. [Id. at ¶ 6]. His shoulder injury was “repaired with an operation” in January 2017, after which Mr. Williams then was absent from work for three weeks, and then he “returned to light-duty work as a trafficengineering inspector for approximately 11 months.” [Id.]. Mr. Williams alleges that “[h]is then-immediate supervisor in the streets department informed him that if he could not within two days return without restrictions to his job as foreman, he would be terminated.” [Id. at ¶ 7]. In response, “Mr. Williams quickly obtained a doctor's release (although it was premature) to protect his job.” [Id.].
Mr. Williams alleges that he first noticed discrimination based on his age in 2017, when he and a coworker, both of whom were over 40 years old at the time, applied for an open supervisory position. [Id. at ¶ 8]. Mr. Williams claims that “[t]he then-superintendent, Mark Bowman, sabotaged their applications” by advising them “not to submit their resumes, which, to them, seemed a reasonable directive” given their respective decades-long tenures with the City. [Id.]. However, “because they did not submit their resumes, they were rated as the eighth and ninth applicants out of a total of nine applicants” and were not considered for the job, which ultimately went to an applicant who was younger than Mr. Williams and his coworker. [Id. at ¶ 9].
On February 6, 2019, Defendant Dan Pumphrey (“Mr. Pumphrey” or “Defendant Pumphrey”) and another supervisor, Keith Bohan, “asked Mr. Williams how much longer he planned to work before retiring.” [Id. at ¶ 10]. On March 13, 2019, Mr. Pumphrey asked Mr. Williams “if he needed to get someone younger to do a job [P]laintiff was working on” and, on May 7, 2019, Mr. Pumphrey asked Mr. Williams “how old he was and . . . when he planned on retiring.” [Id. at ¶¶ 10-11]. Mr. Williams alleges that, on June 8, 2019, Defendant Pumphrey and Plaintiff's immediate supervisor, Craig Koehler (“Mr. Koehler” or “Supervisor Koehler”), “were caught searching [Plaintiff's] private locker at work” in an effort to “find evidence of some wrongful conduct upon which they could force [Plaintiff's] departure.” [Id. at ¶ 13]; see also [id. at ¶ 14].
On August 9, 2019, Mr. Pumphrey asked Plaintiff “how he was holding up[, ]” stated “that this work is hard on the body and referred to [P]laintiff's use of worker's compensation[, ]” and further stated that Plaintiff “appeared to be ‘falling apart.'” [Id. at ¶ 16]. Following another shoulder operation on September 3, 2019, Mr. Williams returned to work on the sweeping and mowing crew, from late September 2019 to early June 2020. [Id. at ¶ 18]. On May 11, 2020, Mr. Pumphrey allegedly asked Mr. Williams again “how much longer he planned on working for the City.” [Id. at ¶ 23].
In June 2020, Mr. Williams returned to work on the concrete crew in order to trade places with another employee “who was cross training . . . with the sweeping and mowing crew.” [Id. at ¶ 24]. On Thursday, July 16, 2020, Supervisor Koehler held a regularly scheduled crew meeting, where he informed the crew that Mr. Williams would be returning to work on the sweeping and mowing crew. [Id. at ¶ 25]. In response, Mr. Williams “objected to this move in front of the other workers.” [Id.]. Mr. Williams believed he would “return to his regular job duties as a foreman on the concrete crew.” [Id. at ¶ 26]. When Mr. Williams questioned Supervisor Koehler about his basis for moving Plaintiff back to the sweeping and mowing crew, Mr. Koehler responded “that this was not his decision, but they could talk to Superintendent Pumphrey about it.” [Id.]. Immediately thereafter, Mr. Williams and Supervisor Koehler met privately in Mr. Koehler's office, where he “began yelling at Mr. Williams”, questioned whether Mr. Williams sincerely believed he was “going to be full time to replace” the individual who had replaced Mr. Williams on the concrete crew, and reiterated that Defendant Pumphrey was the relevant decisionmaker regarding Plaintiff's work assignment. [Id. at ¶ 27]. In response, Plaintiff “told Mr. Koehler that he would not stay in a room where Mr. Koehler was yelling at him” and left the meeting. [Id. at ¶ 28].
After the meeting, Mr. Williams left a voicemail for Defendant Pumphrey, who was absent that day, to request a meeting with him and Supervisor Koehler. [Id. at ¶ 29]. Mr. Williams also called the supervisor of sweeping and mowing “to tell [the supervisor] that [Plaintiff] would see him on Monday morning.” [Id.]. Mr. Williams then went home for the day. [Id. at ¶ 30]. That afternoon, Defendant Pumphrey notified Mr. Williams that he was being placed on administrative leave, but did not provide Plaintiff a reason for the administrative leave despite his requests for the same. [Id.]. Mr. Williams ultimately “was accused of ‘violence in the workplace' and ‘conduct unbecoming a foreman, '” which were based on his “supposedly intimidating Mr. Koehler by leaving the meeting in Mr. Koehler's office where Mr. Koehler was yelling at him.” [Id. at ¶ 31].
On July 21, 2020, Mr. Williams attended an administrative hearing with HR. [Id. at ¶¶ 31, 39]. The same day, Defendant Pumphrey recommended that Plaintiff be terminated. [Id. at ¶ 32]. In the document recommending the termination (“Termination Memo”), Defendant Pumphrey “referred to an incident that happened in 2000” and identified four other incidents “to purportedly justify termination.” [Id. at ¶¶ 32-37]. Mr. Williams alleges that those incidents were used as a subterfuge “to cover the real reason for Mr. Pumphrey recommending termination - Mr. Williams was getting older, physically wearing out, and becoming a liability for the City.” [Id. at ¶ 38].
On August 12, 2020, Mr. Williams attended a second administrative hearing with HR and the Director of Public Works, Don Wick (“Director Wick”). [Id. at ¶ 39].[1] Mr. Williams alleges that at both hearings, “the City disregarded the testimony from two witnesses who said that they were 25 feet away from Mr. Koehler's office and heard Mr. Koehler yelling at Mr. Williams” and stated “they never heard Mr. Williams raise his voice in the meeting”; and instead “credited testimony from two witnesses, friendly to the City, who were not even in the building at the time of the yelling.” [Id. at ¶¶ 39-40]. Mr. Williams claims “the hearings were perfunctory and had nothing to do with whether Mr. Williams committed ‘violence in the workplace.'” [Id. at ¶ 42].
Mr. Williams was scheduled for another meeting on September 9, 2020, with the Director of Public Works. [Id. at ¶ 43]. Prior to that meeting, however, a representative from HR, Jeff Monzingo (“Mr. Monzingo”), informed Plaintiff that the Director of Public Works planned on firing Mr. Williams at the meeting unless he “chose to retire” beforehand. [Id.]. Mr. Williams claims he “had no choice but to retire” and, therefore, “was constructively discharged.” [Id.]. Mr. Williams's position as foreman on the concrete crew was filled by someone younger than 40 years old. [Id. at ¶ 44].
Mr. Williams asserts five causes of action in the Complaint:
[Id. at ¶¶ 45-61].
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the Complaint on August 17 2021. [Doc. 1]. Upon the consent of the Parties, [Doc. 7], this action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for all purposes, see [Doc. 11]. On October 15, 2021, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. 13], as well as their Answer to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial