Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Curtis Y. Pompey v. Leggett & Platt

January 24, 2011

CURTIS Y. POMPEY,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
LEGGETT & PLATT, INCORPORATED,
DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: L. Patrick Auld United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for a recommended ruling on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 20). (See Docket Entry dated Dec. 2, 2010; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1).) For reasons that follow, said Motion should be granted.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court alleging that Defendant, his former employer,*fn1 "is liable to [him]":

1) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981") for "subjecting him to race discrimination, hostile work environment and disparate treatment due to race in the terms and conditions of his employment" (Docket Entry 1 at 6);

2) under Title VII, Section 1981, and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-422.2 for "wrongful[ly] terminati[ng] [his employment] due to race discrimination" (id.); and

3) under North Carolina state law "for the Negligent Supervision and Retention of [Robert Sawyer, a former employee of Defendant, with whom Plaintiff had an altercation at work]" (id.).

In his deposition, Plaintiff clarified that he claimed race discrimination due to the existence of a hostile work environment and in connection with his firing, but that he did not allege "[a]ny other incident that . . . was negative for [him] that was based upon [his] race in this lawsuit[.]" (Docket Entry 21, Ex. A at 72-73.) After the completion of discovery, Defendant moved for summary judgment. (Docket Entry 20.) In support of said Motion, Defendant filed a brief (Docket Entry 21), to which it attached:

A) a transcript of Plaintiff's deposition from April 27, 2010 (id., Ex. A);

B) an affidavit from Joseph Navarro, a regional Vice President of Operations for Defendant, who worked at the same facility as did Plaintiff (id., Ex. B);

C) an affidavit from Kenneth Campbell, Defendant's Plant Manager for said facility (id., Ex. C); and

D) an affidavit from Belinda Clark, Defendant's Human Resources Manager for said facility (id., Ex. D).

Plaintiff responded in opposition (Docket Entry 22) and contemporaneously filed therewith:

A) an affidavit from Plaintiff dated November 4, 2010 (Docket Entry 26) and print-outs from CourtSearch.com regarding Sawyer (Docket Entries 26-1, 26-2);

B) a copy of an "Employee Disciplinary Report Form" from 2007 which documented Plaintiff's provision of an "Oral Warning" to Sawyer for "Absenteeism" (Docket Entry 23);

C) a copy of an "Employment Separation Form" dated March 28, 2008, documenting Defendant's placement of Plaintiff on "one week disciplinary leave with pay" on March 24, 2008 (Docket Entry 24);

D) unsworn written statements from Edward Smith and Sheneda Love about their observations of the altercation between Sawyer and Plaintiff (Docket Entry 25); and

E) Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production of Documents (Docket Entry 27).

Defendant filed a reply (Docket Entry 31), along with a supplemental affidavit of Vice President Navarro (Docket Entry 32).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND*fn2

Plaintiff -- who, in his deposition, described himself as "black" (Docket Entry 21, Ex. A at 36) -- began working for Defendant in 1981. (Id., Ex. A. at 23-25, Ex. B at 3.)*fn3 From 1997 until his firing in March 2008, Plaintiff served as a Production Supervisor overseeing the assembling, painting, and packing of bed frames and rails at Defendant's facility in Lexington, North Carolina. (Id., Ex. A at 26, 28-30.) He reported to Plant Manager Campbell, who reported to Vice President Navarro. (Id., Ex. A at 31.)*fn4 While working as a Production Supervisor, Plaintiff received positive annual evaluations and, as a result, annual raises. (Id., Ex. A at 96.) At the time of Plaintiff's discharge, Defendant had an Employee Handbook of which Plaintiff had knowledge (including as to its portions prohibiting and providing for the reporting of race-based, work-place harassment and authorizing discipline -- up to dismissal -- of employees who fought on company property). (Id., Ex. A at 44-46 and Dep. Exs. 3, 4.)

Racially Hostile Work Environment

In August 2007, Plaintiff had an argument with another Production Supervisor, Kay Swing, over access to some equipment. (Id., Ex. A at 30, 73-76.) During the dispute, Plaintiff "was a little loud, so [Swing] went to [Plant Manager Campbell]." (Id. at 74.) As a result, Campbell, Swing, and Plaintiff had a joint meeting. (Id., Ex. A at 75.) Swing "claimed that [Plaintiff] cursed her"; Plaintiff had not cursed at Swing and told Campbell so. (Id., Ex. A at 76.) In addition, Plaintiff stated that he was "tired of [Swing] calling [him] boy." (Id.)*fn5 Prior to that report, Campbell "was not aware of" Swing's use of that term and "was shocked at the time." (Id.)*fn6 Swing denied Plaintiff's accusation, but apologized nonetheless. (Id., Ex. A at 77.) Plaintiff did not "hear that [term] from [Swing] anymore after the meeting"; nor "did she refer to [Plaintiff] in any way that [he] found offensive after that meeting took place[.]" (Id.)

During Plaintiff's deposition, Defendant's counsel asked Plaintiff to identify "any other basis for [his] claim of harassment" and Plaintiff answered: "Well, I was constantly subject to black jokes." (Id., Ex. A at 80.) Plaintiff then cited an occasion, during a "supervisors' trip" away from the plant in March or April 2007, when (while Plaintiff and his co-workers were "drinking") two of Plaintiff's co-workers, John Gillespie and Charles Reid, used the term "black bees and stuff like that in a joking manner, but to [Plaintiff] it wasn't a joke." (Id., Ex. A at 80-81, 87-88.) When questioned about the meaning of the term "black bees," Plaintiff stated: "If you want me to say it, I'll say it. They're calling me a black bastard." (Id., Ex. A at 81.)*fn7 Plaintiff did not report that incident to anyone because he had known "these guys for years, and [he] really wasn't trying to hurt [them]." (Id., Ex. A at 81-82.)

Plaintiff further asserted that, during supervisory-level meetings at the facility, "sometimes [there were] black jokes told in there." (Id., Ex. A at 83.) He could provide no examples. (Id., Ex. A at 86.) These jokes occurred "about at least every other month," either during a "six-month period" beginning around March or April 2007 or throughout all of 2007. (Id., Ex. A at 86-88.)*fn8 As to "[w]ho told the black jokes," Plaintiff initially stated: "Well, usually, one of my fellow supervisors would tell a joke, a black joke." (Id., Ex. A at 83.) He then said: "Well, Charlie, Mike, all of them would make jokes like that." (Id.)*fn9 Again, Plaintiff did not "complain to anybody about it," because "these guys [he] considered friends. And [he] really didn't want to hurt these guys. [He had] know[n] these guys for years and years and years." (Id., Ex. A at 83-84.)*fn10

When asked if he "ever hear[d] [Vice President] Navarro make a racist joke or anything like that," Plaintiff responded: "Yes." (Id., Ex. A at 94.) As to what he heard, Plaintiff stated only: "I just heard him say the bad -- I'm not sure exact [sic] the word verbatim but about some black." (Id.) In response to a request for a more specific description, Plaintiff demurred, because it had "been so long [since he] heard it." (Id.) More specifically, Navarro made the remark in question "[t]hree or four years before [Plaintiff] w[as] terminated[.]" (Id.) Further inquiry as to the "context" of Navarro's complained-of comment led Plaintiff to testify only that "it was like a joke in one of those meetings that we was [sic] in." (Id.) Plaintiff could remember only one such utterance by Navarro. (Id., Ex. A at 95.)

Toward the end of the initial round of deposition questioning by Defendant's counsel, Plaintiff had a chance to describe "anything else that [he] th[ought] w[as] relevant to [his] claims"; he took that opportunity to assert that he had failed to report the jokes made in meetings because "there wasn't anyone in there [he] th[ought] [he] could trust to tell" and because he "didn't think anything would get done." (Id., Ex. A at 115.) Defendant's counsel then confronted Plaintiff with the fact that Defendant's anti-harassment policy did not require Plaintiff to report his concerns to persons at his facility, but instead gave him "the option of calling [Defendant's] Corporate Personnel Office in Missouri[.]" (Id., Ex. A at 115-16.) Plaintiff nonetheless maintained that he "didn't feel like anything would get done," but conceded that, at the time those events occurred, he "[n]ever" had complained to the Corporate Personnel Office in Missouri (and thus lacked a basis for such a perception). (Id., Ex. A at 116.)

During subsequent examination by his own attorney, Plaintiff testified that, in the meetings he had described, "[his] supervisors [were] in the room when the racial comments were made . . . [and] participated in making some of the racial comments[.]" (Id., Ex. A at 129-30.) Plaintiff further averred that he was "afraid to complain" because his "job was at stake" (i.e., that he might "lose [his] job"). (Id., Ex. A at 130.) As grounds for his fear, Plaintiff cited the fact that, on three prior occasions, he "lost [his] job when [he] complained about racism . . . ." (Id.)

At the conclusion of the examination by Plaintiff's counsel, Defendant's counsel "ha[d] some follow-up . . . questions." (Id., Ex. A at 131.) During that questioning, Plaintiff acknowledged that he "testified before that [he] only heard [Vice President] Navarro make one comment four or five years ago and [he] couldn't remember what it was but [he] believe[d] it was racial[.]" (Id.) When asked if that was "still the only thing that [he] c[ould] remember [Navarro] saying," Plaintiff responded: "He always made comments about -- racist comment." (Id.) Plaintiff then added that Navarro "made only one joke, but he would make a comment out of texture." (Id.) In response to a request for clarification, Plaintiff stated: "Out of texture; out of the ordinary, he would just make a comment about what a black man do [sic]." (Id.)

Defendant's counsel then solicited "any specifics about what [Navarro] may have said," and Plaintiff replied: "He would say something like -- that black motherfucker always messing up [sic]." (Id., Ex. A at 131-32.) As to why he failed to mention that matter during his earlier testimony, Plaintiff said: "Because I just -- it just popped up on me. You ask [sic] me the question. It come [sic] back to me. All I was thinking about was what was in the meeting." (Id., Ex. A at 132.) Next, Defendant's counsel asked "[h]ow many times did [Plaintiff] hear [Vice President] Navarro make a comment like [Plaintiff] just described?" (Id.) Plaintiff answered: "I guess that was only once too. That's why it didn't come back for too long." (Id.) According to Plaintiff, Navarro made that lone remark "a few years ago," "[a]bout the same time as the one joke [Plaintiff] thought [Navarro] made but couldn't remember specifics[.]" (Id.)

In addition, during follow-up questioning by Defendant's counsel, Plaintiff acknowledged that the "three times [he was fired for making] claims of racism . . . all [occurred] in the mid 80's" (prior to his promotion to Production Supervisor) and that Plant Manager Campbell and Vice President Navarro "were not around when these times . . . occurred in the 1980's[.]" (Id., Ex. A at 132- 33.) On those occasions, Plaintiff did not complain to Defendant's Corporate Personnel Office, but instead "went to the Plant Manager" and "got [his] job back." (Id., Ex. A at 133.)

The only other form of harassment Plaintiff cited during his deposition concerned his sense that he "was always being blamed for everything. And to a white employee, female supervisors, [he] was always wrong. [He] was always the wrong one." (Docket Entry 21, Ex. A at 82.) Plaintiff identified two examples:

A) "[He] had to walk the furthest of anyone [to plant meetings], but [he] was always accused of being late, because [he] ha[d] to stop, make sure the department [wa]s running before [he] even [went] to that meeting. But if [he] stop[ped] and got a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.