Dees v. Iron Mountain Inc.

1

TYHLAN DEES, Plaintiff, v. IRON MOUNTAIN, INC., Defendant.

No. 4:20-cv-01791-SEP

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

September 30, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SARAH E. PITLYK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. [25]. The motion has been fully briefed. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.

Background

Plaintiff Tyhlan Dees began working for Defendant Iron Mountain, Inc. on August 5, 2019, in its O'Fallon, Missouri, facility. Doc. [30] ¶¶ 3, 8. Plaintiff was assigned to work for Defendant by a third-party staffing company as a temporary worker. Id. ¶ 8. As a temporary worker, Dees was assigned to work on a project for Mercy Health System and reported to Steven Williams, a Program Manager, and Laura Mosillo, a Senior Consultant. Id. ¶ 10. During his temporary assignment, Plaintiff alleges that another employee, Floyd Crenshaw, an African-American male, discriminated against him and harassed him. See Id. ¶¶ 12-14. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Crenshaw was “unprofessional” to him and would put an elbow to his shoulder when they passed each other at work. Id. ¶ 13. He also alleges that when he and Crenshaw were in the bathroom together, Crenshaw said, “Man, it stinks in here” and turned off the bathroom lights as he exited. Id. ¶ 14. Crenshaw turned the lights back on before leaving and apologized to Plaintiff. Id.

In March 2020, Plaintiff was hired as a full-time casual employee at Iron Mountain and became a Project Specialist for the Mercy Health Project. Id. ¶ 16. In that role, Plaintiff was responsible for reviewing and classifying boxes of different types of records related to the Project. Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff's employment was “project-based and dependent on the needs of the Mercy Health Project.” Id. ¶ 16. His offer letter detailing his full-time arrangement specifically stated that his employment was expected to end on March 31 2021, but that the company could change that date in its discretion. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff still reported directly to Williams in this role but was “expected to take work direction” from Mosillo and Crenshaw, who had become Project Leads for Defendant. Id. ¶ 18.

Within Plaintiff's first two weeks as a full-time employee, he called off from work or left early on short notice more than once, in violation of Defendant's attendance policy. Id. ¶ 20. His absences were generally due to his daughter being ill. Id. Around that same time Plaintiff asserts that Crenshaw was still harassing him at work, so he contacted Mosillo, seeking advice on how to improve his working relationship with Crenshaw.^[1] Id. ¶ 21. He states that Crenshaw was “pretty much belittling [him], harassing [him], and just pretty much using [him] as an example in front of people.” Id. (citing Doc. [28-3] at 90:8-22).^[2] Plaintiff does not recall whether he discussed race or gender during his conversation with Mosillo. Id.

Following Plaintiff's conversation with Mosillo, Williams called an in-person meeting with Plaintiff and Crenshaw to discuss Plaintiff's concerns. Id. ¶ 22. During the meeting, Plaintiff “had an opportunity to tell Crenshaw what was ‘bothering' him,” which Plaintiff did. Id. ¶ 23. After Plaintiff shared his concerns, Crenshaw apologized and shook Plaintiff's hand. Id. Plaintiff maintains that, during the meeting Williams “acknowledged [his complaints]” and noted that Crenshaw was “new at being a supervisor” and that Defendant would work with him on his behavior. Id. Plaintiff and Defendant dispute whether Plaintiff identified his race or gender as the impetus for Crenshaw's harassment towards Plaintiff at the meeting. Id. ¶ 24-25. Although Defendant claims that Plaintiff did not specifically discuss race or gender, Plaintiff contends that he “let both parties know how he felt” about Crenshaw's behavior. Id. 24.

Despite the meeting ending cordially, id. ¶ 23, Plaintiff asserts that it “had little to no effect on the harassment and discrimination” he faced. Doc. [29] at 1. Indeed, throughout his full-time employment he alleges that Crenshaw continued to discriminate against him and harass him in the following ways: by yelling at him to hurry up and move faster in front of other employees; by asking him why he said “der” instead of “there” and telling him that he didn't “have to be talking all ghetto”; by telling other employees that Plaintiff “stunk up the bathroom” and referring to him as “doo-doo boy”; by discouraging other employees from speaking with Plaintiff; by flipping the lights on and off while Plaintiff used the restroom; and by approaching Plaintiff, flatulating, and walking away laughing. Docs. [30] ¶ 25; [37] ¶¶ 8-14.

On March 24, 2020, Plaintiff was involved in an incident at the facility related to COVID-19 and rumors that an Iron Mountain employee had contracted the virus. Doc. [30] ¶ 27. According to Plaintiff, he heard Dwight Mullen, the Operations Supervisor at the O'Fallon facility, take a phone call near the breakroom during which an employee informed him that he or she may be ill with COVID-19. Id. ¶¶ 15, 27. Plaintiff contends that, upon receiving that information, Mullen kicked him and the other employees out of the breakroom and put a mask on. Id. ¶ 27. This, Plaintiff alleges, caused a panic, and Plaintiff informed Mullen and his assistant, Pam Winston, that he was going to leave work early because of the threat of the virus. Id. Mullen and Winston also allegedly told Plaintiff that the building was set to be cleaned by a special cleaning crew, and that it would be safe to return to the facilities the following day. Id. Plaintiff also contends that he called Mosillo and Williams and left them voicemails informing them of the situation and his decision to leave early.^[3] Id.

Defendant contends that it was Plaintiff who incited the panic that day by spreading false rumors, and that he left the facilities without informing management that he was leaving. Id. Following the chaos, Mullen informed Williams about the incident, and after investigating, Williams decided to suspend Plaintiff without pay pending a review of the incident by the Human Resources department. Id. ¶¶ 28, 30. He was suspended from March 25, 2020, until April 13, 2020. Id. ¶ 30. On March 28, 2020, Williams spoke to Plaintiff about the incident, and in late March and early April 2020, Maria Boykin, one of Defendant's Human Resources Generalists, investigated the matter further. Id. ¶¶ 31-33. Boykin could not corroborate that Plaintiff spread a rumor about an employee contracting COVID-19, but she concluded that Plaintiff left the facility “without notifying an exempt-level supervisor in violation of [Defendant's] policies.” Id. ¶ 33.

Plaintiff was reinstated after the conclusion of the investigation, but the parties dispute whether he was paid for some or all the days that he was out on suspension, with Plaintiff contending that he was not paid in full, but Defendant claiming that he was. Id. ¶ 34. Despite being reinstated, Williams issued Plaintiff “a final written warning” for leaving the facility without notifying a supervisor and for incurring 2.5 unplanned absences in his first 90 days of employment as a full-time employee.^[4] Id. ¶¶ 34, 35. Plaintiff argues that Williams's final warning was pretextual and discriminatory to the extent it refers to his 2.5 absences because “female and Caucasian workers [were permitted] to miss days to take care of their sick children without discipline.” Id. ¶ 35. Plaintiff maintains that Crenshaw and Mullen's “lying” about the incident constitutes harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. Id. ¶¶ 36, 37.

Upon his return from the suspension, Plaintiff alleges that Crenshaw continued to harass him and discriminate against him in the following ways:^[5] by being “distant” with Plaintiff; by discouraging others from speaking with Plaintiff because he was “on his last leg”; by calling Plaintiff “that brother” when talking to his coworkers; by discussing Plaintiff's suspension with his coworkers; by harassing him to wear a uniform that was too big for him due to a mistake on the uniform provider's end; by failing to give him a gift card as a bonus that other workers all received as a reward; and by harassing him for coming back late from lunch and other breaks while female and Caucasian workers were permitted to do so. Id. ¶ 36.

Plaintiff also contends that Mullen harassed and discriminated against him in similar ways. Specifically, he claims that, on one occasion, Mullen “looked in [Plaintiff's] general direction” and stated that he liked playing a game called “ring the rat's neck” and noted that “[his] favorite part is when he's choking the rat and it squirms.” Doc. [30] ¶ 37. Plaintiff also alleges that Mullen harassed him by telling him that he could not wear headphones while working, but allowed others-including an African-American female employee and a male employee-to do so. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Mullen generally treated women and Caucasian employees more leniently than Mullen treated him, including by permitting female and Caucasian males to return from lunch and other breaks late.^[6] Id.

Beginning in April 2020, and continuing until July 2020, Williams Mosillo, and Crenshaw had several conversations with Plaintiff about his work performance. Id. ¶ 37. Specifically, they addressed with him mistakes they believed he made, including misclassifying a pallet of boxes and creating tags in error, as well as concerns about Plaintiff's continued use of headphones at work and refusal to wear his uniform. Id. ¶ 39. Plaintiff was not disciplined after any of those performance-related conversations. Id. ¶ 40. Plaintiff contends that his supervisors'...