Stevenson v. Delta Airlines, Inc.

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition

E.D. La.November 6, 2018

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JALEANA STEVENSON § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-6003 § DELTA AIRLINES, INC. § JUDGE SARAH VANCE § MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendant § JANIS VAN MEERVELD § MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DELTA AIRLINES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: Plaintiff, Jaleana Stevenson (“Ms. Stevenson”) hereby opposes the motion for summary judgment filed by Delta Airlines, Inc. (“Delta”). Statement of Genuinely Disputed Material Facts Ms. Stevenson, who is African-American, was subjected to a stressful, hostile work environment and was discriminated against on account of her race during her entire time working at Delta. The hostile, discriminatory work environment ultimately led to Ms. Stevenson being constructively discharged and resigning to work for another airline, at greatly reduced pay and benefits. Ms. Stevenson was prohibited from returning to work while on medication for her work stress-caused shingles, when at least two Caucasian individuals were permitted to work while taking stronger medications. See Ms. Stevenson Deposition, pp. 88 – 89, Exhibit A (selected pages). Another person who is African-American was also told they could not be a work while taking medication. Stevenson Deposition, p. 89. A Caucasian supervisor allowed Caucasian Case 2:17-cv-06003-JVM Document 54 Filed 11/06/18 Page 1 of 7 2 employees to not perform their work and tolerated the employee’s drug problem. Stevenson Deposition, pp. 90 – 91. See also Stevenson Deposition, pp. 94 – 95 (describing Caucasian employees who were allowed to work while on medication). As Ms. Stevenson testified, “there were a lot of race issues that I saw within Delta even before it got to a terrible point for me.” Stevenson Deposition, p. 91. A Caucasian supervisor treated Ms. Stevenson more harshly than other employees, due to Ms. Stevenson’s race. Stevenson Deposition, p. 92. See also Deposition p. 93 (“Do I think that there were a lot of things that people that were other than black would get away with, but if you attempted anything near it, you would get in trouble for it? Yes. So ultimately yes, I think race plays a factor in that establishment.”). Delta’s own documents confirm the repeated hostility of other employees and supervisors to Ms. Stevenson. For example, on December 26, 2010, co-workers verbally attacked Ms. Stevenson in a hostile manner. See E-Mail, DAI-00813 – 814, Exhibit B. Ms. Stevenson complained to Delta that “I feel like I am constantly under attack and some individuals may be conspiring against me.” Id. Two days later her supervisor, Chris Christina threatened and intimidated Ms. Stevenson. See E-Mail, DAI-000745, Exhibit C. When Ms. Stevenson reported the inappropriate behavior of a Caucasian employee, her Caucasian supervisor responded “Jaleana, you are a leader, advise Ronnie you’d like to speak to him and professionally tell him how that made you feel. IF you still need someone to talk to Ronnie afterwards, let us know.” January 30, 2011 E-Mails, DAI-000822, Exhibit C. Delta’s claim that Ms. Stevenson was demoted from Red Coat to Customer Service agent for non-discriminatory reasons due to Ms. Stevenson starting an altercation with another employee on February 10, 2013, is contradicted by her supervisor’s statement and Ms. Stevenson’s statement. Kyla Singleton did not identify who started the incident in her February 13, 2013 Case 2:17-cv-06003-JVM Document 54 Filed 11/06/18 Page 2 of 7 3 statement. See E-Mail, DAI-000656, Exhibit E. See also Ms. Stevenson’s statement, E-Mail, DAI-000654 – 655, Exhibit F. The next day, Ms. Stevenson’s painful shingles re-occurred. See E-Mail, DAI-000711, Exhibit G. Ms. Stevenson’s doctor prescribed the medication Lyrica for the shingles attack, which prevented her from returning to work, because Delta would not permit Ms. Stevenson to work while taking that medication. See E-Mail, June 6, 2013, Exhibit H. When Ms. Stevenson resigned from Delta she sent a concise, professional e-mail to her supervisors. See June 19, 2013 E-Mail, DAI-0001, Exhibit I. She intended to discuss the discriminatory, hostile work environment that caused her constructive termination during her exit interview with Delta’s Human Resources Department, which was never scheduled by Delta. Law and Argument I. Summary Judgment should be denied because there are genuinely disputed material facts “To get past summary judgment, [Ms. Stevenson] need not make it "clear" that she was subject to actionable harassment; she of course only needs to show that a jury could reach that conclusion based on its view of the evidence.” Gardner v. CLC of Pascagoula, L.L.C., 894 F.3d 654, 660 (5th Cir. 2018). Delta must establish that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. At the summary judgment stage, “all the facts and the evidence must be taken in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” Bradley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 620 F.3d 509, 516 (5th Cir. 2010) (vacating summary judgment). Delta offers the deposition testimony of two current employees, Steve Washington and Kyla Singleton. In determining their credibility, this Court will have to consider their possible bias and the reliability of their testimony. Ms. Singleton’s testimony is entitled to little weight, since she had no present recollection of the documents and events concerning Ms. Stevenson’s claims. Case 2:17-cv-06003-JVM Document 54 Filed 11/06/18 Page 3 of 7 4 In reviewing the summary judgment evidence, “the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Contagno Operators, Inc. v. United States, 965 F. Supp.2d 791, 802 (S.D. Tex. 2013). Delta’s motion for summary judgment and Ms. Stevenson’s deposition testimony contain vastly different facts. Delta’s documents create further factual disputes regarding the hostile work environment and Delta’s failure to address the harassment, which led to Ms. Stevenson’s constructive termination. Those factual disputes should not be resolved at the summary judgment stage. II. Plaintiffs has testified to racially motivated harassment and discrimination: Title VIII “makes harassing conduct unlawful when it results in the employer "discriminating against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). This statutory language "is not limited to 'economic' or 'tangible' discrimination." Instead, "the phrase 'terms, conditions, or privileges of employment' evinces a congressional intent 'to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women' in employment, which includes requiring people to work in a discriminatorily hostile or abusive environment. Title VII is violated "when the workplace is permeated with 'discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult,' . . . that is 'sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment. The Supreme Court set the "severe or pervasive" standard as a "middle path between making actionable any conduct that is merely offensive and requiring the conduct to cause a tangible psychological injury." A plaintiff "must subjectively perceive the harassment as sufficiently severe or pervasive, and this subjective Case 2:17-cv-06003-JVM Document 54 Filed 11/06/18 Page 4 of 7 5 perception must be objectively reasonable." Gardner v. CLC of Pascagoula, L.L.C., 894 F.3d 654, 660 (5th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). “To survive summary judgment, the appellants must create a fact issue on each of the elements of a hostile work environment claim: (1) racially discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insults that are; (2) sufficiently severe or pervasive that they; (3) alter the conditions of employment; and (4) create an abusive working environment.” Walker v. Thompson, 214 F.3d 615, 625 (5th Cir. 2000). The “liability for a hostile workplace claim based on the behavior of someone other than a supervisor ultimately depends on whether the employer knew or should have known of the hostile work environment and took reasonable measures to try to abate it.” Gardner v. CLC of Pascagoula, L.L.C., 894 F.3d 654, 663 (5th Cir. 2018). Delta was aware of Ms. Stevenson’s complaints about the hostile conduct, intimidation and threats from her co-workers and supervisors. Instead of addressing Ms. Stevenson’s complaints, Delta demoted her. III. The discriminatory, hostile work environment at Delta compelled Ms. Stevenson to resign: “A constructive discharge occurs when the employer makes working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign.” Hunt v. Rapides Healthcare Sys. LLC, 277 F.3d 757, 771 (5th Cir. 2001). “To prove constructive discharge, a party must show that "a reasonable party in his shoes would have felt compelled to resign. The claim requires a greater severity of pervasiveness or harassment than the minimum required to prove a hostile work environment. To determine if a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign, courts consider the relevancy of the following events: (1) demotion; (2) reduction in salary; (3) reduction in job responsibility; (4) reassignment to menial or degrading work; (5) reassignment to work under a younger supervisor [for age discrimination claims]; (6) badgering harassment, or Case 2:17-cv-06003-JVM Document 54 Filed 11/06/18 Page 5 of 7 6 humiliation by the employer calculated to encourage the employee's resignation; or (7) offers of early retirement or continued employment on terms less favorable than the employee's former status.” Dediol v. Best Chevrolet, Inc., 655 F.3d 435, 444 (5th Cir. 2011). Delta’s documents raise genuine issues of material fact concerning Ms. Stevenson’s constructive discharge claim, since she endured altercations with co-workers, demotion, reduction in pay, reduction in job responsibility, reassignment to demeaning work, and was offered less favorable continued employment. In conclusion, Ms. Stevenson’s testimony and Delta’s documents show that there are genuinely disputed material facts, which preclude summary judgment. This Court will need to determine the credibility of Delta’s witnesses and Ms. Stevenson to decide this case. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons and for the reasons contained in the attached Exhibits, Plaintiff, Jaleana Stevenson, prays that this Court deny Delta Airlines’ motion for summary judgment. Respectfully submitted, RODNEY & ETTER, LLC /S/ John K. Etter / John K. Etter (La. Bar No. 25042) 365 Canal Street, Suite 2690 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: 504-483-3224 Fax: 504-483-2259 E-Mail: jke@rodneylaw.com Case 2:17-cv-06003-JVM Document 54 Filed 11/06/18 Page 6 of 7 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on all counsel of record via the Court’s CM-ECF filing system and via e-mail and facsimile transmission on the 6th day of November 2018. /s/ John K. Etter ____________________________________ John K. Etter Case 2:17-cv-06003-JVM Document 54 Filed 11/06/18 Page 7 of 7