Hall v. Cent. Transp.

SHON LEE HALL, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION, Defendant.

SHON L. HALL, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL TRANSPORT, INC., Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-02000-RDP

Case No.: 2:18-cv-00853-RDP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

April 15, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Shon Lee Hall filed this lawsuit against Defendant Central Transport, claiming that he was discriminated against because of his race (African-American) and retaliated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.¹ (Doc. # 25). These cases are before the court on Defendant's Motion to for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 44). The Motion has been fully briefed (see Docs. # 45, 50, 53) and is ripe for review. After careful review, andfor the reasons explained below, the court concludes that Defendant's Motion (see Doc. # 44) is due to be granted.

I. Factual Background²

Plaintiff is an African-American male who was employed by Defendant between approximately July 22, 2011 and October 17, 2016. (Docs. # 46-3 at 7; 46-4 at 2).³ Plaintiff applied to work for Defendant by filling out an application online, and thereafter he met with Chris Johnson, a Caucasian male, who was employed as Defendant's terminal manager. (Doc. # 46-2 at 15-17). Plaintiff first began working as a "night line haul" truck driver, which required Plaintiff to drive an 18-wheeler tractor trailer to Atlanta, Georgia, delivering and picking up (i.e., loading and unloading) freight. (Doc. # 46-2 at 11). Plaintiff received his initial training⁴ from Derek Renkema⁵ (a Caucasian male) who, at that time, was employed as a night line haul driver. (Id. at 16-17). After about a week of working the night line haul, a "day job route" opened that allowed Plaintiff to drive to and from Gadsden, Alabama every day. (Id. at 18). When Plaintiff transferred into that position, he changed position titles from night line haul driver to "city driver." (Id.). About three months after that, a Tuscaloosa route opened up and Plaintiff transferred to work that route (Id. at 18-19). Plaintiff was also trained for that position, and hestayed on the Tuscaloosa route for approximately five years, until his termination. (Id. at 19-20).

As a driver, Plaintiff was required to carry a handheld device which was used to record and track "deliveries and pickups" electronically. (Docs. # 46-1 at 23-25; 46-4 at 3). For example, a driver would use the device to log information about deliveries and communicate with Defendant and its customers. (Docs. # 46-1 at 25; 46-3 at 13). While at a location:

[A] driver must scan the barcode stickers 'pro number' affixed to each individual pallet of freight being delivered, followed by the customer signing the handheld device as acknowledgment of the receipt. The customer signature on the handheld device is then transmitted to the applicable bill-of-lading,⁶ generating a delivery receipt bearing the customer's signature. If the handheld device is malfunctioning such that the customer's signature cannot be obtained on the handheld device, the driver is to have the customer sign the bill-of-lading confirming receipt of the freight. The driver then provides the signed bills-of-lading to [Defendant] when he returns to the terminal at the end of his route.

(Doc. # 46-4 at 2-3). Dean Kuska, an employee of Liberty Bell Agency (who contracts with Defendant),⁷ testified that the handheld devices could, and did, malfunction frequently by losing service. (Doc. # 46-1 at 24). If a handheld device malfunctioned, the bills-of-lading were not to be scanned into the handheld once it came back online; rather, a driver was to notify a supervisor of the issue, and the supervisor would direct the employee how to proceed. (Id. at 26; Doc. # 46-3 at 14). Nevertheless, Plaintiff testified that it was common practice among all the drivers to later input every delivery/pickup in the handheld if it reconnected before the end of the day. (Doc. # 42-2 at 80).

Additionally, Defendant used "GPS data to track its city drivers' routes throughout the day." (Doc. # 46-4 at 3). "The GPS allow[ed] [Defendant] to closely monitor the driver's everymove while under dispatch by transmitting and electronically recording the driver's coordinates at a rate of every three (3) minutes or more frequently." (Id.). If a handheld malfunctioned, the GPS data was not affected because the GPS data was transmitted through a separate operating system. (Id.).

Plaintiff testified that, starting in late 2015, he believed that Renkema was discriminating against him based on race. (Id. at 28-44). Renkema is the employee who initially trained Plaintiff, and became the new terminal manager and Plaintiff's direct supervisor. (Id.). Plaintiff testified that he believed Renkema treated Caucasian employees more favorably than African-American employees by (1) giving African-American drivers heavier loads to deliver and/or pick up,⁸ (2) burdening African-American drivers with unfair delivery and pick-up locations,⁹ and (3) preventing African-American drivers from leaving early on Fridays (while giving Caucasian drivers these opportunities). (See id. at 33, 36-37). Additionally, Plaintiff testified that he overheard Renkema saying that Eric Cooper, an African-American truck driver, looked like a monkey, and called him "coon."¹⁰ (Docs. # 46-2 at 115; 46-12 at 128-29). Plaintiff also testified that Renkema was "vindictive;" regardless of one's race, "[i]f you question[ed] him about anything he was going to make it hard on you." (Doc. # 46-2 at 45-46).

Plaintiff testified that, during a normal delivery or pick up, if he finished earlier than anticipated, he was required to contact dispatch, and they would direct him how to proceed fromthere. (Id. at 60-61). Plaintiff was audited in April 2016 because there were a few instances where his GPS showed him sitting in one location for a long period of time. He explained that this was because he was waiting on dispatch to tell him what to do. (Id. at 60-61). Although Plaintiff did not receive any discipline as a result of the April 2016 audit, he testified that such audits are not routinely performed on city drivers. (Id. at 59).

On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff testified that his position was converted to "city driver lead,"¹¹ and that, while he was "supposed to get a raise," his salary never changed.¹² (Id. at 24, 131-33; Doc. # 50-1 at 1). During his transition, Plaintiff says he was still required to maintain his primary job, and that this so-called new "position" would merely add additional duties. (Doc. # 46-2 at 136). Plaintiff received about two weeks of training from Darryl (who held the position previously) to "set trailers with the computer in the office and . . . set the outbound trailers for the line haul and to set the trailers that go out to be loaded in the morning" (i.e., organize the scheduling of deliveries and pick-ups). (Id. at 24, 133-34). However, Plaintiff was never fully trained. (Id.). Plaintiff testified that his additional responsibilities included closing out terminals, preparing bills-of-lading, assigning doors for trailers, and securing the building.¹³ (Doc. # 50-1 at 1). These duties were not previously part of his former driver position. (Doc. # 46-2 at 24-25). Notwithstanding his assumption of these new responsibilities, Plaintiff testified that he did not receive the position he was trained for because Defendant hired an "outside" applicant—BradShupe, a Caucasian male. (Id. at 137).

According to Defendant, in September 2016, Plaintiff applied for the position of Outbound Supervisor, which Shupe was hired to fill. (Doc. # 46-12 at 84-85; Doc. # 46-4 at 2). Renkema told Plaintiff that they "decided to go another route," even though (according to Plaintiff) he had more experience than Shupe. (Doc. # 46-2 at 138).

On July 14, 2016, Plaintiff was "given a written warning for not communicating with [] Renkema . . . when using [his] handheld radio." (Doc. # 50-2 at 3). Plaintiff testified that he informed Renkema that the handheld had malfunctioned and that he "had been communicating with his supervisors via his personal cell phone." (Id.). Nonetheless, Plaintiff was given a written warning. (Id.). Nick Reeves and Chad Ireland, both Caucasian males who had previously done the same thing, were not disciplined. (Id.).

On October 3, 2016, Plaintiff received an Incident Action Report ("IAR") for failure to take a lunch break. (Doc. # 46-2 at 88).

In October 2016 -- about one week before he was terminated -- Plaintiff attempted to contact Rick Mayfield, Defendant's Regional Employee Relations Manager, about Renkema's discriminatory conduct towards his employees, particularly African-American drivers; however, Plaintiff was not able to reach Mayfield. (Doc. # 46-2 at 48-49).

On October 13, 2016, Renkema completed two IARs regarding Plaintiff's work performance. IARs are considered disciplinary in nature. (Doc. # 46-12 at 49).

The first IAR stated that Plaintiff "failed to show [a certain product/shipment] . . . actually delivered sometime prior to 11:55 am according to communication between the dispatcher and [Plaintiff]. It was actually scanned [in as] delivered at 17:41 pm." (Doc. # 46-2 at 90). Plaintiff testified that when he got to his first stop, his handheld malfunctioned. (Id. at 76).He further testified that, even though the handheld malfunctioned, the customer signed the bill of lading. (Doc. # 46-2 at 96). After the malfunction, Plaintiff received a call from Shupe ("the second in charge to [Renkema]" and the Outbound Supervisor), who told Plaintiff to continue his route and his deliveries, and that if Plaintiff was required to make any other pick-ups, he would call and "give the address." (Id.). Plaintiff testified that he had only been scheduled to make deliveries (as opposed to pick-ups) that day. (Id. at 77). At 5:00 or 5:30 pm, Shupe told Plaintiff "to start heading back" and put his deliveries into the handheld...