Ahern v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

609 F.Supp.3d 1314

Vicki AHERN, Plaintiff,

v.DELTA AIR LINES, INC., and Humberto Tapanes, Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:18-cv-22455-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed July 5, 2022

Brian R. Mildenberg, Pro Hac Vice, Mildenberg Law Firm, Philadelphia, PA, David Berlin, Pro Hac Vice, Weisberg Law, Morton, PA, Matthew B. Weisberg, Pro Hac Vice, Morton, PA, Gary Schafkopf, Pro Hac Vice, Schafkopf Law, LLC, Bala Cynwyd, PA, Richard James Caldwell, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff.

Carol Ann Field, Charles Mark Garabedian, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant.

ORDER

DARRIN P. GAYLES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants’, Delta Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta Air Lines") and Humberto Tapanes ("Tapanes") (collectively, "Defendants"), Joint Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Joint Motion") [ECF No. 83]. The Court has reviewed the Joint Motion and the record, heard oral argument, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, the Joint Motion is granted.

BACKGROUND¹

Delta Air Lines, like many companies in the United States, maintains an anti-discrimination and harassment policy which is outlined in an internal company document titled The Way We Fly. The policy provides employees several avenues for reporting instances of discrimination, harassment, bullying, or intimidation that an employee is either subjected to or witnesses.² By policy, Delta Air Lines does not tolerate any form of retaliation for reporting such acts. In this action, Plaintiff Vicki Ahern brings claims for discrimination and retaliation against Delta Air Lines and Tapanes for Tapanes's offensive remarks and behavior relating to Plaintiff's Jewish faith and for Delta Air Lines’ denial of Plaintiff's accommodation request.

I. Factual Background

A. Plaintiff's Position as a "Ready Reserve" Customer Service Agent

On January 21, 2015, Plaintiff began working for Delta Air Lines as a "Ready Reserve" Customer Service Agent ("RRCSA") at Miami International Airport. Her job duties included assisting passengers in the lobby, baggage drop, Aeromexico, Customs & Immigration, flights to Cuba, ticketing for First Class and general passengers, the gate, baggage claim, and general "cross utilization, wherever, whenever." [ECF No. 82 at 1 ¶ 6]. Additional RRCSA duties included: interacting with Delta Air Lines and Aeromexico customers; reviewing boarding cards and/or passports; tagging bags for check-in; lifting bags from a scale to a conveyor belt; lifting check-in bags of up to 70 pounds for First Class passengers; and lifting check-in bags of up to 50 pounds for non-First Class passengers.³ When assigned to a Delta Air Lines gate, RRCSA duties also included opening and closing aircraft doors weighing over 100 pounds and handling bags without the assistance of a bag belt.

RRCSAs typically work between 600 and 1,400 hours per year and receive limited benefits. Additionally, an RRCSA can partner with another RRCSA to swap shifts or otherwise adjust their schedule. RRCSAs are managed by Operation Service Managers ("OSM"), who in turn are managed by Station Managers. During the relevant time period, John Higgins served as Delta Air Lines’ Station Manager for Miami. Four different OSMs directly supervised Plaintiff over the course of her employment with Delta Air Lines. Tapanes directly supervised Plaintiff during the first few months of her employment. Plaintiff was subsequently directly supervised by Jason Finks and then Roger Williams, see [ECF No. 82 at 3 ¶ 10], though Plaintiff maintains that Tapanes continued to supervise her because they both typically worked in the morning. See [ECF No. 114 at 1–2 ¶ 10; 24 ¶ 109].

B. Tapanes's Discriminatory Conduct

The parties dispute when Tapanes learned of Plaintiff's Jewish faith. Plaintiff maintains that Tapanes learned of her Jewish faith after she took bereavement leave to attend her father's funeral in July 2015. [ECF No. 114 at 11 ¶ 70]. Defendants argue that Tapanes learned of Plaintiff's faith on December 31, 2016, following an incident between Tapanes and Plaintiff. [ECF No. 82 at 8 ¶ 47 & 8 ¶ 47 n.5]. Though the parties fail to describe with specificity when certain comments and behaviors occurred, the Court endeavors to construct a chronological timeline to promote clarity about the events at issue.

In September 2015, when Plaintiff was not present, Tapanes made a comment to Hago Hagen—a German employee—stating: "How is that going to work, a German and a Jew working together?" Hagen immediately told Tapanes that he considered the comment to be inappropriate and Tapanes apologized.⁴ In a second instance in early 2016, Hagen told Tapanes of a trip he planned to Germany. Tapanes smiled, chuckled, and saluted Hagen while saying "Heil Hitler." After Hagen told Tapanes that he should not do that again and explained his concerns about the comment, Tapanes immediately apologized. Hagen later told Plaintiff in May or June 2017 about these earlier comments.⁵

During the course of her employment, Tapanes told Plaintiff to fix her broken name tag and the hem of her work uniform skirt. The parties do not provide dates or estimates as to when these events occurred. In October 2016, during a work briefing, Tapanes also commented on Plaintiff's hair containing a pink streak following an event she attended. [ECF No. 84 at 271]; [ECF No. 95-2 at 29].

On December 7, 2016, Plaintiff mentioned her favorite Ethiopian restaurant while discussing an upcoming trip. Plaintiff states that Tapanes replied, "you people need to be careful no pork for you." Tapanes denies that he made this comment, and the employee who was also present denies hearing Tapanes making such a comment. [ECF No. 82 at 6 ¶ 29]. On another undated occasion in the break room, while Plaintiff sat next to a Muslim employee, Tapanes commented: "Wow, a Jew and a Muslim speaking as friends, what a combination."

On December 31, 2016, Tapanes spoke to Plaintiff about a customer service incident involving Plaintiff (the "December 31, 2016, Incident" or the "Incident"). [ECF No. 82 at 7 ¶ 36]; [ECF No. 114 at 13–14 ¶ 73]. The Incident involved a customer with an infant who was required to go through the security line three times because the customer's boarding pass did not designate that he was travelling with an infant-in-arms. [ECF No. 82 at 7 ¶ 36]. The customer complained to a Passenger Service Agent, who then reported the Incident to Tapanes. [ECF No. 82 at 7 ¶ 36]. During a one-on-one meeting, Tapanes asked Plaintiff if she knew or remembered how to process a customer with an infant-in-arms. [ECF No. 82 at 7 ¶ 37]. Plaintiff stated she had no knowledge of the Incident and continued to request more information and the passenger's name. [ECF No. 82 at 7 ¶ 37]; [ECF No. 114 at 13–14 ¶ 73]. Tapanes responded that the passenger's name was not relevant because the goal of the meeting was to ensure that she knew how to process an infant-in-arms. [ECF No. 82 at 7 ¶ 37]. According to Plaintiff, Tapanes stated that he was "going to get his ducks in a row, and keep an eye on" Plaintiff and that she "better take care. I'm watching." [ECF No. 82 at 7 ¶ 38]; [ECF No. 114 at 13–14 ¶ 73]. Plaintiff also maintains that Tapanes asked "why didn't [she] just say that [she] did something wrong and let it be?" though she denies wrongdoing. [ECF No. 82 at 7 ¶ 38]; [ECF No. 114 at 13–14 ¶ 73]. That same day, Plaintiff emailed Tapanes and apologized "for any misunderstanding" for her mistake. [ECF No. 82 at 7 ¶ 39].

According to Plaintiff, after the Incident, the tension between Plaintiff and Tapanes got "personal" and Tapanes's unfair treatment of Plaintiff amplified. Specifically, Plaintiff states that Tapanes gave her assignments with the highest number of passengers in baggage drop, regularly hovered over her and invaded her personal space while she was performing her job duties in order to physically intimidate her, and refused to let her serve First Class passengers. Plaintiff does not supply any evidence regarding the dates or frequency of these incidents. Defendants assert Tapanes stood close to Plaintiff due to the limited space behind the ticket counter and removed her from working a First Class counter once in January 2017 following a shooting at a nearby airport when lines were long and Plaintiff required repeated assistance processing passengers. [ECF No. 82-1 at 32–35]. Tapanes states he moved a more experienced agent into the position to handle the increased passenger volume. Tapanes further explained he only assigned agents to work specific ticket counters when another agent was on bathroom break, for example, and the lines started to get backed-up.

Plaintiff also contends that, on an undated occasion, Tapanes commented to her about how frequently Plaintiff stopped the conveyor belt and asked her to keep a count of how many times she stopped it. In May 2017, Tapanes blamed Plaintiff for not providing a visa to an individual on a flight to Cuba; when it later came to light that another employee made the mistake, Tapanes told Plaintiff that the issue "had been straightened out" and walked away.⁶

C. Plaintiff's Complaints Regarding Tapanes

In late December 2016, Plaintiff contacted Cy Cardona, a Human Resources Representative, and stated that she believed Tapanes discriminated against her based on her Jewish faith. During the discussion, Plaintiff did not provide specific details or examples of Tapanes's alleged discrimination. Cardona asked Plaintiff if she spoke to Higgins about Tapanes, and Plaintiff stated that she had not. Cardona stated that Plaintiff could either file a complaint or go to Higgins. Plaintiff declined to file a complaint.

On December 31, 2016, following the Incident with Tapanes, Plaintiff emailed Higgins requesting to meet with him privately to discuss Tapanes. On January 6, 2017, Plaintiff and Higgins met and Plaintiff reported her complaints about Tapanes, including that she believed that...