Darden v. Saint Gobain Container Inc., No. 5:2009cv00184 - Document 54 (E.D.N.C. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER granting 37 Motion for Summary Judgment. The clerk is directed to close this case. Copy forwarded to pro se plaintiff via first class mail. Signed by Senior Judge Malcolm J. Howard on 8/1/2011. (Heath, D.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Darden v. Saint Gobain Container Inc. Doc. 54 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WEATERN DIVISION NO. 5:09-CV-184-H WILLIAM DARDEN, Plaintiff, v. ORDER SAINT-GOBAIN CONTAINERS, INC. , Defendant. This matter is before the court on defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff has responded, and this matter is ripe for adjudication. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Plaintiff former employee ("Saint -Gobain" employment 2007, William was plaintiff of or Darden defendant ("Darden" terminated on July Hired 20, J., dismissed Ex. 13 [DE plaintiff's is Containers, in 2007. May a Inc. 2007, his On November 2, charge of the discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Summ. "plaintiff") Saint-Gobain "defendant"). filed a or #38].) charge On ("EEOC") February 4, finding no (See Def.' sM. 2009, reasonable the cause EEOC to Dockets.Justia.com support the allegations. (Id., Ex. 14). On April 24, plaintiff filed the original complaint in this action. 30, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended 2009, On July complaint. Plaintiff alleges that the decision by defendant to terminate plaintiff's employment on July 20, 2007, was based upon his race. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Defendant operates a plant in Wilson, manufactures glass containers. North Carolina that The plant is separated into two sections known as the "hot-end" and the "cold-end." end of the plant, there are tanks that mix the materials needed to make "gobs" of molten glass. molds to form bottles. conveyor plant, running belts and The gobs are then injected into The formed bottles are transported by production lines to where quality control checks are the bottles through automatic the cold plant runs twenty-four hours a day, end performed, inspection Bottles are then packaged for delivery to customers. (A, of the including equipment. The Wilson seven days a week. cold end the plant employs four different crews D) . In the hot B, In the C, and Each crew has a supervisor who Three crews work each day. reports to Cold End Manager Pat Rohde. The process of making bottles only shuts down when molds are changed to make different types of bottles. production of gobs is continuous, 2 Because the it is imperative that jams or backups of bottles at any location on the production line be eliminated. If the backup is not properly managed, then the bottles that are backed up have to be "dumped" or recycled. Plaintiff was hired by defendant into position of shop attendant on May 29, 2007. a "probationary" employee, meaning he the entry level Darden was hired as could be fired for any reason and was not protected by the union contract available to full-time employees. From October 8, 2006 to May 30, defendant had hired a total of fourteen shop attendants, whom, including Darden, were African-American. 2007, ten of Darden was assigned to work on crew D under the supervision of Tom McHale. At the time of Darden's assignment, twenty-eight of twenty-nine employees working supervision American. Crew chiefs, such as McHale, were given the right to under McHale's were African- fire employees on their crew. Plaintiff was responsible for monitoring two different production lines to ensure the lines did not jam and to keep his area clean by sweeping up broken glass. an operation called a squeezer. Darden also monitored The squeezer presses bottles to check their strength and quality and often causes poor quality bottles to break or fall over. The squeezer is a dangerous machine in which an employee can amputate a hand or an arm if he attempts to remove a jammed bottle 3 without de-energizing the squeezer and the conveyor line. Darden was trained on the proper procedure for de-energizing the squeezer before beginning work and was assigned an experienced employee training during his first few days of work. to do hands-on During training, plaintiff was informed that any employee who put his hand near the point of operation of the squeezer without de-energizing the equipment would be guilty of a safety violation that could result in his immediate discharge. In 2007, Mindy Davidson was employed by defendant as a "Tank Manager" at the Wilson plant and was responsible for all production issues connected with one of the two tanks in which raw materials are mixed to make molten glass. Her authority exceeded that of the crew supervisors. On June 7, 2007, Davidson and McHale were standing on an Davidson observed overhead platform near Darden's work area. Darden putting squeezer. Davidson his hand near the point of operation of a While McHale did not observe the violation himself, advised McHale of safety plaintiff's violation. Davidson and McHale walked down to the floor of the plant, and Davidson advised Darden that he had committed a safety violation and demonstrated equipment. violation. the proper procedures for de-energizing the committed the During Davidson's conversation with plaintiff, Jack Plaintiff denied that 4 he had Baciak, a Quality Control Supervisor at the Wilson plant approached McHale and advised him that he had been walking the floor at a location that gave him a clear line of sight into plaintiff's work area and that he had also observed plaintiff put his hand near the squeezer's point of operation without shutting down the equipment. McHale determined that plaintiff should be fired because of the safety violation. private office Brickhouse, McHale asked plaintiff and called a to come to his representative, union Joe even though Darden was a probationary employee with no right to union representation. After McHale advised Darden he was terminating him, Darden continued to deny he committed a safety violation. Upon leaving McHale's office, Darden Brickhouse went to the office of McHale's supervisor, Manager Pat Rohde. and Cold End Darden told Rohde he had not committed a safety violation and asked him to accompany him to the squeezer to allow plaintiff to After procedures. show Rohde seeing that Darden knew the proper Darden demonstrate the proper procedures, Rohde agreed to give Darden a second chance provided Darden and the union agreed to a 3D-day extension of his probationary period. Following June 7, 2007, McHale continued to observe various performance problems by plaintiff: 5 for example, trouble maintaining his concentration, failing to properly clear a problem with the case packer, failing to eliminate the causes of a jammed broken line to 12, McHale glass. reprimands need on Shop and also gave or counseling about speed up his failing work, to promptly plaintiff regular job deficiencies do a better job sweep up oral including the observing and clearing jams, and improve on housekeeping matters like sweeping up broken glass. Shortly before the end of Darden's probationary period, July 20, again. on McHale called Darden and Brickhouse to his office 2007, McHale advised plaintiff he was terminating him because of poor job performance. Plaintiff's response to the motion for summary judgment is difficult to follow. For example, plaintiff claims that McHale did not give him regular oral counseling following the June 7, 2007, incident. memorandum, However, plaintiff that he need [sic] in claims the that very next McHale sentence "always of told his Darden to speed up his work regardless of how well his work was and treated him with disdain and always presented a condescending wha t soever [ . 1" taunt, even when there was no problems (PI.' s Mem. Resp. Summ. J. at 3 [DE #43] .) according to plaintiff, Even it appears McHale was communicating to plaintiff that there were problems with plaintiff's performance. 6 Plaintiff also claims that he was treated differently than a whi te employee, Tim Horne. He "failed in several departments" departments. claims that Mr. Horne had but was able to work in other Plaintiff states this was an opportunity he was not given. COURT'S DISCUSSION Standard of Review I. Summary judgment is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Liberty Lobby, seeking Inc., summary 477 U.S. judgment 242, bears 247 Anderson v. (1986). initial the The party burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Once the moving party has met party may not rest on the its burden, allegations or the non-moving denials in its pleading, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, but "must come forward with 'specific facts trial. Matsushita '11 showing that Elec. Indus. Corp., 475 U.S. 574,587 (1986) As this court has stated, the court to resolve there is Co., a genuine Ltd. v. issue for zenith Radio (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). summary judgment is not a vehicle for disputed factual 7 issues. Faircloth v. united States, 837 F. a reviewing a trial should court determine Supp. 123, 125 claim at whether a (E.D.N.C. the genuine 1993). summary issue Instead, judgment exists for stage trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. In making inferences favorable Inc., drawn to 369 this determination, from the the underlying 654, 655 (1962) facts must in the view (per curiam). the light United States v. the non-moving party. U.S. court Only most Diebold, disputes between the parties over facts that might affect the outcome of the case properly 477 Anderson, preclude at U.S. the entry 247-48. of summary Accordingly, the judgment. court must examine "both the materiality and the genuineness of the alleged Faircloth, fact issues" in ruling on this motion. 837 F. Supp. at 125. III. Burdens of Proof An employer summary judgment facie case reasons act. Cir. or the charged if fails evidence to employer See Henson v. 1995) the insufficient; raise a must fails factual for Liggett Group, support there discrimination plaintiff proffers Furthermore, in with the Inc., to is entitled establish a dispute alleged to prima regarding the discriminatory 61 F.3d 270, 274 (4th "the mere existence of a scintilla of of be the plaintiff's evidence 8 on which position the jury [ is] could reasonably find for the plaintiff." In Title VII cases, Id. a plaintiff may make out a prima facie case by proffering direct evidence of cumulati ve operation, discrimination probati ve would support as a or apart force, suffice indirect under from the the plaintiff's the presumption's controlling reasonable probability the standard [protected status or activity]," of such Douglas 794 F.2d 142, evidence, Corp. a v. 146 (4th Cir. plaintiff Green, must 1986). resort u.s. 411 to inference that but for the would not have taken the adverse employment action. Bevilacqua, "whose evidence Holmes v. In the absence to 792, defendant the McDonnell (1973) , 802-805 presumption framework. Under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff faced with a motion for summary judgment must first establish a prima facie case of unfair treatment by a preponderance of Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 61 F. 3d at 274. facts from 509 U.S. the evidence. 502, 506 See St. (1993); Henson, A prima facie case requires plaintiff to prove which a nexus can be inferred between the alleged adverse action and the plaintiff's protected status or conduct. Holder v. If the City of Raleigh, plaintiff 867 F.2d 823, establishes a inference of discrimination arises. 9 prima 826 facie (4th Cir. case, 1989). then an See Henson, 61 F.3d at 274. The defendant then can offer legitimate, explanations for the McDonnell Douglas, allegedly 411 U.S. nondiscriminatory discriminatory at 802. acts. See The employer's burden is one of production, not of persuasion; therefore, the employer is not required to prove the absence of discriminatory motive. See Henson, the 61 at 274-75. burden ultimate F.3d of persuasion. legitimate, by a The plaintiff If non-discriminatory reason, preponderance explanations of the merely are a the always bears employer offers the plaintiff must evidence pretext otherwise are not worthy of credence. that the for show defendant's discrimination See id. a at 275. or It is not enough for the plaintiff to merely prove the falsity of the employer's explanations; of intentional Products, the plaintiff must also prove his case discrimination. 530 U.S. 133, 147 Reeves (2000). v. Sanderson However, Plumbing it is permissible to infer the ultimate fact of discrimination from the falsity of the employe~s IV. Analysis To explanation. establish a prima Id. facie case under Title VII, plaintiff must show: protected class; (3) he was similarly (2) race discrimination (1) he is a member of a he was performing his job satisfactorily; subjected situated of to adverse employees employment outside 10 the action; and protected (4) class received more 1376, 1383 favorable (4th Cir. treatment. 1995); Hill Hughes v. v. Bedsole, 48 F. 3d Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt. Inc., 354 F.3d. 277, 285 (4th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff, who is African-American, was performing his job exceptionally well, his supervisor contrast, and ultimately discharged. a white employee, Tim Horne, claims that while he he was mistreated by He claims that in was allowed to train in various positions and was treated more favorably than plaintiff. Defendant argues that plaintiff was not performing his job at an acceptable level and that other employees, Horne, were not treated more favorably. In argues that plaintiff was actually treated more including Tim fact, defendant favorably than other employees because he was not immediately discharged after he was observed by two different supervisors making an egregious safety violation, but rather was prove he could perform the job. admits that the safety justified termination. give Darden a given another Defendant notes that plaintiff violation if his he committed Cold End Manager Rohde's would have decision to second chance was an unprecedented action at the Wilson facility and contrary to what happen opportunity to supervisors believed important safety rule. 11 plaintiff was that he had told would violated an Plaintiff Rohde's argues reversal however, of that the McHale discharge treated him decision. unfairly Defendant that McHale did not personally observe incident. Instead, different supervisors. the after notes, "squeezer" McHale was informed of the violation by two reinstated by Rohde, Furthermore, McHale told plaintiff after Darden that he would was ensure Darden would be retained at the end of his probationary period provided plaintiff adequately Plaintiff and do the failed ~I to McHale necessary to perform independently Declo could prove by work. 9; Davidson Decl. Plaintiff contends Davidson plaintiff (Darden adequately, McHale, that as and Dep. decided Rohde speculates was that (See that other Caucasian employees failing Horne 49.) separately McHale in was his job being moved performance. to received Plaintiff points to the treatment of a probationary employee Tim Horne, Horne at ~7-8.) favorable treatment on the basis of race. that could many contending Plaintiff different work areas because he was failing in the area he was in, while Darden stayed in one area, so he must have been successful. However, defendant's policy is such that once a probationary employee was proficient in one work area, he is moved to another work area so that he is cross-trained in all functions in the cold end of the plant. Defendant states that Horne was moved 12 to multiple work areas because he continued to meet company standards on all cold end functions. Plaintiff however was moved less often because he never demonstrated proficiency in his original position. Plaintiff contends satisfactorily. he was performing more than He argues that the production lines to which he was assigned were producing bottles at higher volume than other lines. Defendant notes that the productivity of a production line is determined by many factors and cannot be the sole basis for judging plaintiff's job performance. Plaintiff constantly cause. contends (yelled and that McHale screamed at gave him oral him) without warnings legitimate He notes that he was never written up for anything other than the alleged safety violations discussed earlier. Defendant notes that because plaintiff was a probationary employee, he was not subject to it the employees and was provide probationary same not protections the company's employees with as non-probationary regular written practice to warnings. Defendant's contract with the local union gave the company the right to discharge probationary employees for any reason, and probationary employees have no right of appeal under the union contract. In sum, defendant notes that plaintiff was given a second chance to come back to work after engaging in a serious safety 13 violation, thus receiving more favorable treatment than Horne or other similarly situated employees. The court finds that plaintiff has not shown a prima facie case of disparate treatment. The facts show that plaintiff was not performing his job in a satisfactory manner. Furthermore, he has not shown that persons outside the protected class were treated more favorably than he was. Even disparate assuming plaintiff treatment, can show a prima defendant has provided a facie case legitimate, of non discriminatory reason for termination of plaintiff's employmentcontinued substandard performance. Davidson and Rohde evidence The declarations of McHale, that plaintiff's poor performance was the cause of his termination. Job performance is a valid, legitimate, reason and employment. 960 954, nondiscriminatory Evans v. (4th Cir. Techs. 1996) recognized as a valid, employment decision") Finally, that (poor job termination Serv. & performance of Co., 80 F. 3d is "widely nondiscriminatory basis for any adverse (internal citations omitted) . plaintiff has defendant's Application for failed to provide evidence to show explanations are a pretext for unlawful race discrimination. Plaintiff admits he never heard McHale utter a racial or (Darden epithet Dep. at make 43-44, other 168) racially charged Additionally, 14 in statements. July 2007, thirty-one of the thirty-three crew were African-American. employees assigned is difficult It for plaintiff to argue that he was singled out because of his race. Bank of America Corp., ("the record shows of employees therefore, was Additionally, defendant out 2d 341 n.1 employment See Bello v. (D. for termination June twelve 11, unit entry whom were African-American. on 2007 level Md. 2004) the overwhelming majority were African-American is no basis whatsoever to believe from hired Supp. indisputably that in Bello's there singled 320 F. to McHale's the basis through shop of that Bello 'race.'"). November attendants, (Rohde Decl. ~I 26.) 5, 2007, seven of 1 The court finds that plaintiff has not shown a prima facie case of racial discrimination because the evidence shows he was not performing his job satisfactorily and other employees were not treated more favorably than he was. Additionally, defendant has come forward with legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his discharge-violation performance Finally, issues of during safety his standards extended and multiple probationary job period. the court finds that plaintiff has not shown that his termination was a pretext for unlawful race discrimination. 'plaintiff notes that there are twelve recent EEOC filings by current employees claiming racial discrimination, but plaintiff has failed to show the relevancy of such filings to his case. The court notes that it appears these cases all involve one supervisor, a person different than the supervisors involved in this case. 15 CONCLUSION For the foregoing judgment is GRANTED. This ~r reasons, defendant's motion for summary The clerk is directed to close this case. # ... r I-day of ~ 2011. District Judge At Greenville, NC #26 16
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
