Jackson v. Longistics Transp., Inc

DANNY JACKSON and ANNETTE JACKSON, Plaintiff,

v.LONGISTICS TRANSPORTATION, INC, Defendant.

No. 11-2093-STA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

Date: April 13, 2012

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is Defendant Longistics Transportation, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. # 26, 27) filed on January 27, 2012. Plaintiffs Danny Jackson and Annette Jackson have filed a response in opposition, and Defendant has filed a reply brief. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are not in dispute for purposes of this Motion unless otherwise noted. Defendant Longistics Transportation, Inc. is a trucking company headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina, with one other location in Memphis, Tennessee. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 1.) Defendant has approximately 135 to 140 employees. (Id.) The only two shareholders of the company are Duane and Pat Long. (Id.)

Plaintiffs Danny Jackson and Annette Jackson, who are married, worked as team drivers for Defendant from 2004 to 2007 and returned to the company in July 2008. (Id. ¶ 2.) According toAnnette Jackson, she joined a church known as Hungry Hearts in January 2007 and her husband joined in October or November 2007. (Id. ¶ 6.)¹ Plaintiffs' church is a Christian congregation that adheres to the Jewish Torah, meaning members observe the Sabbath day and Jewish feast days. (Pls.' Statement of Add'l Facts ¶ 1.) By the fall of 2007, Plaintiffs had decided to follow their church's Sabbath mandate, which required Plaintiffs to refrain from work from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 7.)²

Accordingly, when Plaintiffs returned to work for Defendant, they attended employeeorientation on July 14, 2008, and mentioned their Sabbath practices to the orientation leader, specifically stating that they observed the Sabbath on Saturdays. (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiffs requested only that they be off from sundown Friday through sundown Saturday. (Pls.' Statement of Add'l Facts ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs were willing to and offered to take runs the rest of the weekend, even coming in at sundown Saturday or on Sundays and traditional Christian holidays such as Christmas and Easter. (Id.) In response, the orientation leader explained Defendant's scheduling procedure and stated that most loads went out on Sundays. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 13.)³

Under its company policy, Defendant considers it insubordination for a team to refuse a dispatch to carry a load. (Id. ¶ 23.) If a team refuses a load, "[a] final written warning will be issued." (Id.) The policy further states that two refusals within a twelve (12) month period will result in termination of employment. (Id.) Approximately two weeks after orientation, Plaintiffs refused to take a load that was assigned to them. (Id. ¶ 24.) When Plaintiffs refused the load, Defendant's human resources director Randall Bain ("Bain") explained to Plaintiffs that they needed to fill out time-off requests in order to take off for their Sabbath. (Id. ¶ 25, 44.) Otherwise, Plaintiffs' religious beliefs did not conflict with their employment in 2008 and 2009, because they filled out time-off requests for every date that they needed to have off. (Id. ¶ 43.)

Prior to January 8, 2010, Defendant's company policy permitted a driver who did not want to take a load to "mark off" the load from the schedule. (Id. ¶ 28.) When a driver marked off a scheduled load, Defendant would assign the load to the next driver on the list. (Id.) "Planners" or "dispatchers" were Defendant's employees who called drivers and offered them loads to haul. (Id. ¶ 4.)⁴ After January 8, 2010, Defendant eliminated the mark-off policy, according to Bain, in order to free up time for its planners to do other things. (Id. ¶ 29.) Defendant also changed the policy because following a software upgrade, the mark-off procedure was not compatible with Defendant's new program. (Id.) There is also evidence that the planners regularly overrode the new program to change a load at a driver's request and that overriding the program took only a few minutes. (Pls.' Resp. to Def.'s Statement Undisputed Facts ¶ 29.) Planners continued to change load assignments frequently because loads were often being added, dropped, or modified. (Pls.'s Statement of Add'l Facts ¶ 22.) Bain testified that under the new system drivers could still have time off approximately every other weekend and that they still filled out paid and unpaid time-off requests. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 31.)

Defendant made an additional change to its leave policy in March 2010. Prior to March 15, 2010, Defendant allowed drivers to put in unpaid time-off requests sixty (60) days in advance of the requested days off. (Id. ¶ 32.) According to Defendant, this policy was problematic because five or six teams of drivers, including Plaintiffs, requested their weekends off so far in advance that other drivers were unable to put in requests. (Id. ¶ 33.) Plaintiffs reiterate that they never requested to have off Sundays and were willing to accept assignments at any time over the weekend aftersundown Saturday. (Pls.' Resp. to Def.'s Statement Undisputed Facts ¶ 33.) Drivers who were not getting the time off that they requested complained and demanded a change in the policy. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 33.) Plaintiffs add that only five drivers made these complaints about the old system. (Pls.' Statement of Add'l Facts ¶ 19.) After March 15, 2010, Defendant changed its time-off procedures to allow employees to request time-off only thirty (30) days in advance and restricted the number of unpaid days off to six (6) within a ninety-day quarter. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 34.) After a driver used his or her six days of unpaid leave, the driver still was free to use accumulated paid time off and vacation days. (Id.)

Plaintiffs received notice of the new policy, which stated that the purpose of the change was "to be fair and equitable to all OTR [over the road] drivers and their needs to take time off for various personal reasons." (Id. ¶ 35.) The policy changes were approved by Duane and Pat Long. (Id. ¶ 36.) Plaintiffs discussed the policy change with Lou Medlin who allegedly stated that Plaintiffs were misusing the system and that it was not fair for Plaintiffs to be the only ones off every weekend. (Id. ¶ 37.)⁵ According to Danny Jackson, he told Bain on March 5, 2010, that he would have to take the Sabbath off, no matter what, and Bain replied that he understood and respected Jackson's religion. (Id. ¶ 40.) Jackson also stated his concern that the new policy would not provide Plaintiffs with a "guarantee" that they would never have to work on the Sabbath. (Id. ¶ 41.) At the time of the March 2010 policy change, Plaintiffs still had time off available. (Id. ¶ 42.)

Danny Jackson testified that, until June 3, 2010, he was able to use the company's system to get the days off he needed to observe the Sabbath. (Id. ¶ 46; see also Pls.' Statement of Add'l Facts ¶¶ 12,13.) Then on June 3, 2010, Plaintiffs were scheduled to take a load and leave Memphis for Lakeland, Florida on Thursday and then continue on to Miramar, Florida before returning to Memphis. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 47.) Danny Jackson admitted that a driver had to take the load because the cargo included prescription drugs, which had to be stored in refrigeration. (Id. ¶ 48.) When the dispatcher offered Plaintiffs this load, Plaintiffs asked to swap because they would not be able to return home before the Sabbath. (Id. ¶ 49.) The dispatcher agreed to attempt to swap Plaintiffs' assigned load for another load. (Id.) The dispatcher later informed Plaintiffs that she could not change the load because Plaintiffs were not scheduled for time off on those days, and as such swapping the load would violate company policy. (Id. ¶ 50.) Plaintiffs add that they could not schedule time off for these days because the leave policy allowed them to schedule only six days off during a 90-day period. (Pls.' Resp. to Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 50.) At that point, Plaintiffs refused to take the load. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 51.) After Plaintiffs refused the June 3, 2010 load, Bain issued both Plaintiffs written warnings, stating that "[a]nother refusal within a 12 month period will result in your termination of employment." (Id. ¶ 52.)

The following week Plaintiffs were assigned another load from Memphis to Lakeland and Miramar, Florida, scheduled to leave on June 10, 2010. (Id. ¶ 53.)⁶ Plaintiffs also requested to swap the June 10 run with another team because they would not be able to return home in time for theSabbath. (Id. ¶ 54.) Plaintiffs add that the dispatcher told them that they might be able to swap for a load destined for Birmingham, Alabama, a run which Plaintiffs could have completed before the start of the Sabbath. (Pls.' Resp. to Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 55.) Later the dispatcher informed Plaintiffs that they could not swap the June 10 load because there was no time-off available. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 55.) Plaintiffs refused the June 10 load, and following this second refusal to take a load, the dispatchers instructed Plaintiffs that they needed to meet with Bain before they could be assigned any more runs. (Id. ¶ 56.)

Sometime over the weekend after the June 10 incident, Plaintiffs cleaned out their truck. (Id. ¶ 57.) Bain learned that Plaintiffs had cleaned out their truck and later viewed this as a resignation. (Id.) Plaintiffs dispute that their act of cleaning out their truck amounted to their resignation. Plaintiffs assumed Defendant would dismiss them for their refusal to take the June 10 load and admit that they removed their linens from the truck on June 11, 2010. (Pls.' Statement of Add'l Facts...