Williams v. Sdi of Jackson, LLC
| Decision Date | 07 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-203-CG-N |
| Parties | SHENEAKA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. SDI of JACKSON, LLC, et al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 25), Plaintiff Sheneaka Williams's opposition thereto (Doc. 27), and Defendants' reply (Doc. 29). Defendants have also moved this Court to strike portions of Plaintiff's affidavit (Doc. 28) and to strike the affidavit testimony of Ross Wallace (Doc. 30).1 For the reasons explained below, the Court finds Defendants' motion for summary judgment is due to be granted in part and denied in part.
This case arises from Williams's employment with and termination from Defendant SDI of Jackson, LLC's ("Sonic") restaurant in Jackson,Alabama. The Complaint states Defendant Joe Toney ("Toney"), the Kitchen Manager, sexually harassed Williams and created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (Doc. 1). It further alleges Sonic terminated Williams in retaliation for her complaints against Toney. Id. Williams has also brought state law intentional tort claims against Sonic, Toney, and Sonic's franchisee Brad Dronet ("Dronet"), as well as a negligent and wanton supervision claim against Sonic and Dronet. Id.
The parties agree on few facts, which will be summarized briefly. Williams began working at the Jackson, Alabama Sonic on October 6, 2011, and remained in that job until she was terminated on or around March 22, 2014. (Doc. 25, p. 17). Defendant Dronet is the franchisee and owner of the Sonic in question, and his wife Carlene Dronet served as the Human Resources Manager during the dates relevant to this case. (Doc. 25, p. 17, 21). The record demonstrates Williams received five written warnings regarding violations of Sonic's employment policies from November 2012 through January 2014. (Id. at 28-32). Two infractions were for tardiness, and three were related to shortage of cash at the end of her shifts. Id. On March 22, 2014, Williams was involved in a physical altercation with another Sonic employee. (Id. at 25-27; Doc. 27-1, p. 6). The parties disagree about the exactnature of the scuffle, including who initiated it and whether Williams was fired at that time. (Compare Doc. 25, p. 25-27 with Doc. 27-1, p. 6).
The parties further agree that on October 6, 2011, Williams underwent new employee orientation, which included an overview of Sonic's harassment policy. Id. at 19, 21. This policy defines sexual harassment as behavior that:
Id. at 21. An employee who has been subjected to harassment or discrimination based on gender, among other protected classes, "should report the problem at once to [his or her] immediate supervisor." Id. In the event the employee does not feel comfortable reporting to that person, the employee "should proceed at once to [the] next level supervisor, or any level of supervisor with management responsibilities over [Sonic], or you may contact: Brad Dronet, Franchisee [or] Carlene Dronet, Human Resources Director." Id. (). After the employee reports the alleged harassment or discrimination, the policy dictates the allegations "will be investigated" and will include "appropriate disciplinary action" when warranted. Id. The policy states, however, "no disciplinary action will be taken without an investigation of the facts,normally including a signed written statement from the complaining employee." Id. Williams signed her copy of the policy in acknowledgment of its receipt on October 6, 2011. Id. The parties agree Williams never submitted a written complaint about Toney's alleged harassment of her.
Plaintiff initially began working the night shift but was then transferred to the day shift. (Doc. 27-1, p. 4).2 Once she began working the day shifts, she reports, "Toney, the Kitchen Manager[,] began sexually harassing [her]." Id. This alleged harassment included: (1) asking Williams "for sex in return for money on at least two occasions," (2) asking her "if he could see [her] breasts and touch them," (3) telling her that she "looked fine" and "had a nice butt and nice breasts," (4) "brush[ing] by" her "constantly" while touching her breasts and bottom, and (5) reaching for things and touching her breasts. Id. at 5. Moreover, Williams states she "saw him touch the private parts of a co-employee with Mr. Dronet present." Id. According to Williams, her co-worker "got very upset[,] but Mr. Dronet didn't do anything." Id. Moreover, Williams also reports she Id. She furthercharacterizes these inappropriate comments and touches as "constant" and "continuous" throughout her employment. Id. at 4-5.
Williams reported the harassment "to the store manager" but maintains the "harassment was the same after [she] reported [Toney] as it was before [she] reported him." Id. at 5. She further alleges Dronet "condoned" and "joined in the harassment" of female employees. Id. Williams claims Dronet "told [her she] should be more flirtatious with customers" and that her failure to do so, in combination with her continued complaints, resulted in her termination. Id. She further states she never received written warnings until after she began complaining about Toney and other employees, who did not report harassment, did not receive written warnings for the same or similar behavior. Id. at 5-6.
Williams admits she was involved in a physical altercation with another employee, whom she identifies as Toney's sister-in-law.3 (Doc. 27-1, p. 6). She differs with Defendants' version of the melee in two main ways: She claims (1) her coworker "swung at [her] first" but was not terminated for her actions and (2) "Mr. Green came up to [her] in the parking lot and told [her she] was not fired" and she "should report back to work on [her] next shift." Id. When she returned to Sonic for her next shift, she claims Toney "laughedat [her] and said [she] was not on the schedule"; thereafter, her name never appeared on the schedule, and her employment ended. Id.
To support her claims, Plaintiff submitted the affidavit of her coworker Ross Wallace ("Wallace").4 (See Doc. 27-1, p. 1-3). Wallace worked at Sonic around the same time as Williams and personally observed Toney's behavior and actions while at Sonic. Wallace contends he personally witnessed Toney: (1) "rub against the females in tight spaces," (2) "rub his privates against their bottom[s] many times," (3) "use his arm to try and brush against their breasts or bottom," and (4) "tak[e] pictures with his [Toney's] phone of the girls' body parts." Id. at 1-2. Wallace states he "saw [Toney] do this to Sheneaka [Williams] daily." Id. (). Further, Wallace described the general reaction to Toney's act of taking photos at Sonic: "It was known by the employees that if you heard the click of a phone, everybody would flinch and look to see if Toney was taking their picture." Id. at 2. Wallace further alleges that he viewed photos on Toney's phone "of the female employees' bottoms" when he was using Toney'sphone with permission. Id. After seeing these photos, Wallace reported this behavior to Courtney Hill, a manager at Sonic. Id. After his report, "[a] store meeting was held where we were told there was to be no more 'perversion' and given a sheet to sign on sex harassment." Id. Wallace believes that meeting occurred in 2013 but reports the "atmosphere continued after that meeting." Id.
As to be expected, Defendants paint a strikingly dissimilar picture in their submissions to the Court. Defendants collectively deny any allegations of sexual harassment and insist Plaintiff never submitted a complaint to Sonic through any of her managers, supervisors, or the human resources manager. (See Doc. 25, p. 5, 17). Defendants maintain a complaint of sexual harassment would necessarily result in "a written, signed copy in [Sonic's] records," which does not exist. (Doc. 25, p. 17).
Defendants further assert Sonic terminated Williams "for inciting violence in the workplace by threatening and physically assaulting her supervisor, Amanda Phillips." Id. Both Phillips and the restaurant's General Manager Charlie Green (also known as Leonard Green) submitted written statements about the altercation. Both statements reveal Plaintiff and her sister, Cassandra Williams, were involved in the melee and indicate Plaintiff became involved only after Cassandra and Phillips engaged in a verbal argument. (See Doc. 25, p. 25-26). Green states he witnessed both Cassandra and Plaintiff approach Phillips and start fighting with her. Id. at 25. Heclaims he broke up the fight between the three women and that, immediately thereafter, Plaintiff "tried to pull the switchboard down off the table." Id. He also states he wrote a disciplinary report for both Cassandra and Plaintiff and terminated them. Id.5
To continue reading
Request your trial