Fields v. Am. Airlines, Inc.

696 F.Supp.3d 66

Andre FIELDS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-903-KSM

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Filed September 29, 2023

Karin M. Gunter, Law Offices of Karin M. Gunter, Wyncote, PA, for Plaintiffs.

Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC, Andrew Litchenstein, Los Angeles, CA, Kelly Suzanne Wood, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Newport Beach, CA, Mark W. Robertson, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant American Airlines, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Marston, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Andre Fields and Kendall Green¹ bring employment discrimination claims for disparate treatment, disparate impact, retaliation, and hostile work environment under state and federal law against their employer, Defendant American Airlines, Inc.² American moves for summary judgment on all counts, arguing that Plaintiffs failed to put forth evidence showing that this case should proceed to trial. (Doc. Nos. 148, 151, 158.) Plaintiffs respond that they are entitled to additional discovery on their disparate treatment and disparate impact claims and that fact disputes preclude summary judgment as to their claims for retaliation and hostile work environment. (Doc. Nos. 157, 161.) The Court held oral argument on American's motion on March 3, 2023. (See Doc. Nos. 165, 168.)

In addition to its motion for summary judgment, American also moves for sanctions, arguing that Plaintiffs have violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a prior Order of this Court by failing to provide a computation of the damages that they claim in this case. (Doc. No. 143.) American asks the Court to preclude Plaintiffs from putting forth evidence of damages at trial as a sanction for this noncompliance. (Id.) Plaintiffs have not responded to the motion for sanctions. Finally, after oral argument on the pending motions, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for leave to withdraw as Fields's and Green's attorney. (See Doc. No. 178.) The Court held a show cause hearing on that motion on June 6, 2023. (See Doc. Nos. 179, 180.)

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the relevant facts are as follows.

A. Plaintiffs' Employment with American

Plaintiffs are African American men who have worked for American Airlines (or its predecessor) as "fleet service agents" at the Philadelphia International Airport ("PHL") since the mid-1990s. (Doc. No. 157-1 at ¶¶ 1-2, 23-24; Doc. No. 148-4 at 24:23-25, 28:24-29:4; Doc. No. 148-5 at 12:25-13:19, 14:5-12.) "Fleet service agent" is a broad term that refers to multiple shift assignments with different job responsibilities, including loading bags, transferring bags, catering, and lavatory service. (Doc. No. 148-13 at 70:23-71:9.) As fleet service agents, Plaintiffs are represented by a national union, TWU-IAM,³ and the terms of their employment are set by a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between the Union and American. (Doc. No. 148-4 at 30:5-12; Doc. No. 148-5 at 16:21-25.) Per the terms of the CBA, Fields and Green bid for shift assignments according to their seniority. (Doc. No. 148-5 at 27:5-12.)

Since 2012, Fields has bid for the morning shift, working on Carousel 4 in the area known as the "domestic bag chute." (Doc. No. 157-1 at ¶¶ 4-5; see also Doc. No. 148-5 at 13:9-11, 27:5-18, 30:21-33:1.) The domestic bag chute at PHL has four carousels, and flights are assigned to a specific carousel based on destination. (Doc. No. 157-1 at ¶ 9; Doc. No. 148-5 at 29:6-11.) When a customer checks a bag at the American ticket counter, it is sent down the assigned carousel, where an agent, like Fields, places it on a cart and drives it to the correct gate to be loaded onto the appropriate aircraft. (Doc. No. 157-1 at ¶¶ 4-5; Doc. No. 148-5 at 19-14.) Bruce Fauntleroy has been an American customer service manager at PHL's domestic bag chute since 2014 and in that capacity, supervises Fields. (Doc. No. 157-1 at ¶ 8; see also Doc. No. 148-8 at 7:15-17, 10:24-11:12, 365:22-36:1.)

Since 2015, Green has bid for and worked part-time as an assigned bag runner, which is sometimes referred to as an "ABR." (Doc. No. 157-1 at ¶ 26.) Bag runners take bags from flights arriving at PHL to connecting flights departing PHL. (Doc. No. 157-1 at ¶ 32; Doc. No. 148-6 at 58:22-59:9; see also Doc. No. 148-6 at 126:5-127:18 (describing process of flight assignments to bag runners).) Devon Chiddick was a customer service manager over ABRs from 2014 until 2019 and had direct oversight of Green during that time. (Doc. No. 148-7 at 11:5-17.) In that capacity, Chiddick reported to Michael Spriggs, who was a duty manager in Customer Operations, which included the ABR Department, from 2014 to 2020. (Id. at 39:21-42:1; see also Doc. No. 148-6 at 15:17-21, 30:6-31:3, 45:5-9, 50:8-51:10.)

B. Plaintiffs' Prior Complaints and Actions

This is not the first complaint that Plaintiffs have brought against American while working for the airline. In brief, before initiating this lawsuit, Plaintiffs brought two lawsuits related to a practice known as "top filling," one in September 2015 and one in May 2017. (See Doc. No. 148-5 at 34:19-35:15; Doc. No. 158-1 at ¶ 31.) The phrase "top filling" refers to an unofficial practice of using five-gallon water jugs to fill airplane lavatory tanks with a chemical solution (i.e., "blue juice"). Plaintiffs alleged that the used jugs were then placed in areas where they would be used by African American employees for drinking water. All of Plaintiffs' top filling claims in this case have been dismissed with prejudice. (See Doc. No. 82.)⁴

In addition, in September 2014, Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") and Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") related to unsafe equipment. (Doc. No. 157-21; see also Doc. No. 148-4 at 30:11-22, 33:19-34:12; Doc. No. 148-5 at 250:23-251:18.) OSHA sustained those violations and issued fines against American in connection with that complaint. (See Doc. No. 157-21 at 12-25.) American agreed to alter its practices, and among other things, required employees to perform an 11-point inspection of tug⁵ equipment before each use. (Doc. No. 157-23 at 3.j; see also Doc. No. 157-19 at 2.) Plaintiffs filed a second complaint with OSHA in May 2017, again arguing that American required employees to use to unsafe equipment. (Doc. No. 157-19; see also Doc. No. 148-4 at 34:20-25; Doc. No. 148-5 at 33:14-34:4.) That complaint was dismissed in January 2018 when Plaintiffs' prior counsel failed to cooperate with the agency. (See Doc. No. 157-19 at 14, 26.) Plaintiffs, through their current counsel, attempted to reopen that complaint in February 2019 but were unsuccessful. (Doc. No. 157-19 at 32-29; see also Doc. No. 148-4 at 35:4-19; see also Doc. No. 158-1 at ¶ 42.)

Finally, in early 2018, Plaintiffs were part of a group of associates who met with counsel for American and representatives from the Philadelphia chapter of the NAACP to discuss working conditions at PHL. (See Doc. No. 157-14 at 11 (Plaintiffs' former counsel emailing American's counsel that they could keep the meeting "small but that is still [him], [his] co-counsel and probably several associates, Fields, Green, Smith, and Roundtree, and the President and the Secretary of the Philadelphia NAACP"); id. at 21.) On December 11, 2018, when those conversations failed to lead anywhere, Plaintiffs filed charges with the EEOC and the PHRA, alleging the instances of race discrimination that serve as the basis for this lawsuit, which was filed on March 4, 2019. (Doc. No. 148-4 at 36:4-6; Doc. No. 148-5 at 35:16-20.)

C. Instances of Discrimination

Plaintiffs base their discrimination claims on numerous incidents throughout their employment with American. The Court focuses on the incidents that fall within the limitations period—i.e., those that occurred on or after March 4, 2015.⁶,⁷ Broadly, these incidents can be categorized as claims that: (1) employee-only areas at PHL are marked with racially offensive graffiti and imagery, (2) Plaintiffs have been issued progressive discipline because they complained about having to work in a discriminatory and/or unsafe work environment, and (3) Plaintiffs and other African American employees are consistently given a disproportionate share of the workload.

1. Offensive Imagery and Graffiti

Both Plaintiffs claim to have seen racially offensive images and writings in employee-only bathrooms and work areas at PHL.

a. Fields

Fields testified to seeing multiple, repugnant writings in the bathroom stalls of "B terminal"⁸ between 2017 and 2021:

• "Go back to Africa";

• "N****** go home"; and

• "Fuck N******."

(Doc. No. 148-5 at 285:15-23, 287:11-288:9.) Fields did not report any of the writings to HR, but he believes he may have spoken with a manager identified as Matthew Rich⁹ about the writings. (Id. at 195:7-196:16.) Fields does not know whether the graffiti was eventually painted over. (Id. at 196:11-19.)

Fields likewise testified to seeing what appeared to be black face drawings near Carousel 4:

• A drawing of a banana with a "face of something on it ... symbolizing Afro hair" (Doc. No. 148-5 at 189:16-190:2, 285:24-287:10);

• A drawing that "looked like a face" that had "red lips" (id. at 285:24-287:10); and

• A smiley face spraypainted on the ground near Carousel 4 by a coworker in 2021. (id. at 113:2-117:11 (Fields testifying that he wasn't sure what the image was but felt it was racially motivated).)

Fields does not remember reporting the banana image and red-lipped drawing to management, but he believes he may have spoken with Fauntleroy about them at some point. (Id. at 189:24-190:18, 195:25-196:10. But see Doc. No. 148-8 at 88:1-90:3 (Fauntleroy testifying that he was never told about the other drawings, nor did he see them himself).) Fields is also unsure when the two images appeared, or how long they remained on the wall before...