Johnson v. ITT Corp.

TAREEM JOHNSON, Plaintiff,

v.ITT CORPORATION, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. 1:10-CV-142

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

Entered: September 1, 2011

OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Tareem Johnson is suing his former employer, Defendant ITT Corporation, alleging that his race led to discrimination and ultimately his termination. He also claims he was the victim of retaliation, protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, et seq., ("Title VII"),¹ and that ITT intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him. On May 16, 2011, ITT moved for summary judgment on all of Johnson's claims. (Docket # 20.) Johnson has not filed a response. Nevertheless, and although the Court could rule on the motion summarily, Local Rule 7.1 (a), Johnson's claim received a thorough review. After reviewing the record, the Court has determined that, for the following reasons, ITT's motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND²

On December 17, 2007, ITT hired Johnson as a Supervisor Operations II in its Communication Systems division to install radios in Iraq. (Compl. ¶¶ 11-13; Beeson Aff. ¶ 6.) ITT Communication Systems is distinct from and has different management than ITT Systems. (Claudy Dep. 11-12; see Beeson ¶¶ 1-5, 12.) In March 2008, Johnson began his first assignment with ITT Communication Systems in Camp Taji, Iraq. (Compl. ¶ 14; Johnson Dep. 18-19.) After the expiration of the contract under which they were working, Johnson returned to the United States with fellow team members Melvin Pilapil, David Kneeland, Mike Landum, and Thomas Garner. (Johnson Dep. 32-34, 38-39.) Team members Lew Blackwood and Kris Wohlfort remained in Iraq. (Johnson Dep. 32-33.)

Upon Johnson's return from Iraq in October 2008, Johnson reported to Cyril Claudy, Field Services Manager in the Communication division. (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 24; Claudy Dep. 8.) Claudy allegedly introduced himself to the entire team, which was racially diverse (Caucasian, African-American, Filipino, and Hispanic), as a "prick." (Johnson Dep. 115-16.) Claudy then met with each member of Johnson's team individually to determine whether they wished to stay with ITT and to inform them of the open positions.³ (Claudy Dep. 32.) These meetings were brief,informal, and without the involvement of Human Resources. (Hughley Dep. 147; Claudy Dep. 34.) In the meeting with Johnson, Claudy and Johnson discussed various topics, including whether Johnson wanted to stay with ITT, the job description for a field service representative, and their families. (Johnson Dep. 37; Claudy Dep. 32.) According to Johnson, Claudy was "pretty professional" throughout the meeting (Johnson Dep. 37:8), and Johnson was happy with Claudy's decision to make him a field service representative (Johnson Dep. 40).

After two assignments to military bases in Georgia, Johnson was assigned to Fort Campbell. (Johnson Dep. 40, 43.) At Fort Campbell, Johnson worked at the RESET (radio repair) site, which Johnson stated operated from 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 or 5:45 p.m.⁴ (Johnson Dep. 56, 59.) Johnson worked as a Lead employee with Jorge Medina (Johnson Dep. 56-57), whom he was shadowing to learn how a RESET site operated (Claudy Dep. 72). Johnson and Medina were the only two ITT Communication employees at the RESET site in Fort Campbell. (Johnson Dep. 141.) Johnson and Medina reported to Claudy, while ITT Systems employees at the same site reported to a different ITT Systems Manager. (Johnson Dep. 141.)

At Fort Campbell, ITT worked together with Tobyhanna, a separate entity, to perform their contractual obligations to their shared customer, CECOM. (Claudy Dep. 61.) Tobyhanna employee Mark Avery was the Site Lead for Tobyhanna at Fort Campbell. (Claudy Dep. 61.) Johnson had problems with Avery, and Johnson shared his complaints about Avery with ITT. (Johnson Dep. 88.) Because Avery worked for Tobyhanna, ITT had no authority or supervision over him. (Claudy Dep. 90-91.) At one point, ITT sent supervisor Dave Rees to Fort Campbell toobserve and assist in dealing with Avery. (Johnson Dep. 165.) According to Johnson, Rees's presence temporarily improved Avery's behavior. (Johnson Dep. 165.) Johnson was not the only ITT employee to complain about Avery; according to Claudy, everybody complained about Avery. (Claudy Dep. 62, 90.) Johnson similarly agreed that people of all different backgrounds, including Caucasians and African-Americans, complained about Avery. (Johnson Dep. 86.)

In Spring 2009, Claudy learned that an installer position might need to be filled in Camp Taji, Iraq. (Claudy Dep. 57.) Based upon the needs of the operation, Claudy sent supervisor Rees to fill the position because of his experience and depth of knowledge. (Claudy Dep. 59.) Shortly thereafter, Claudy believed that Camp Taji might need another installer so he sent an email to see if anyone was interested. (Claudy Dep. 58.) Johnson wanted to return to Iraq⁵ (Johnson Dep. 46) and expressed interest in that position (Claudy Dep. 58). However, the need for a second installer at Camp Taji operation did not ultimately materialize. (Claudy Dep. 58.)

On Saturday, June 6, 2009, Claudy received an early morning phone call from the CECOM Site Lead, stating that Johnson did not show up to the work site. (Johnson Dep. 76; Claudy Dep. 64-65.) Claudy was angry that he received a customer complaint about Johnson's absence and conveyed his frustration to Johnson during a phone call that same day. (Claudy Dep. 67; Johnson Dep. 75, 164.) Johnson testified that he could tell Claudy was upset and that he was a "little loud spoken" and "talking louder than usual," but not yelling. (Johnson Dep. 164:4-8.) During this call, Claudy informed Johnson of the gravity of his mistake and that it would cost him any potential deployment to Iraq. (Claudy Dep. 67.) Johnson defended his absence by contending hetold the CECOM Site Lead (the same customer that complained to Claudy) that he was not going to be at the work site that day. (Johnson Dep. 74.) Johnson, however, did not inform Claudy or any other ITT Communication supervisor of any planned absence. (Johnson Dep. 76; Claudy Dep. 91-92.) While Johnson maintains that working on Saturday is optional (Compl. ¶ 44), ITT's policy is that, if the work site is open, ITT employees are expected to be there unless they have notified Claudy or an ITT supervisor of their absence (Claudy Dep. 63-64).

After his absence, Johnson contacted Human Resources Manager for the Communication Division, Chuck Hughley, an African American, who instructed Johnson to send him an email explaining "everything that was going on" at Fort Campbell with "the exact details." (Hughley Dep. 73; Beeson ¶ 9; Johnson Dep. 78, 162.) On June 12, 2009, Johnson wrote the email that Johnson now refers to as his "complaint" and the basis for his retaliation claim. (Johnson Dep. 78-79.) Johnson testified that his email included all of his complaints while working at Fort Campbell and that the email was triggered by his June 6, 2009, absence. (Johnson Dep. 72-73.) The email did not mention discrimination, harassment, or retaliation by ITT and is devoid of anything related to race or any other protected characteristic. (Johnson Dep. 71, Ex. 24.) Johnson did not make a complaint of race harassment or discrimination to Hughley. (Hughley Dep. 152.) Following the email, Johnson testified that Claudy interacted with him "as if nothing was wrong," but that he "could feel the animosity even though [Claudy] wasn't showing it."⁶ (Johnson Dep. 114:9-12.) Notably, Hughley never received complaints of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation from other ITT employees in regard to Claudy. (Hughley Dep. 147-48.)

In early July 2009, Claudy received information suggesting that Jorge Medina, the Site Lead at Fort Campbell, was falsely recording his time. (Claudy Dep. Ex. 5.) Upon traveling to Fort Campbell to investigate (Claudy Dep. 71-72), Claudy and supervisor Doug Tellas observed when Medina (and Johnson) arrived at and left the work site on July 8, 2009 (Claudy Dep. 76, 78-79, Exs. 6, 7). On that day, Medina reported that he worked twelve hours despite only being at the work site for approximately ten hours. (Claudy Dep. 76, Exs. 5, 6, and 7.) Medina was immediately removed from his position (Claudy Dep. 94), and Johnson temporarily stepped in as the lead for the site (Claudy Dep. 73). Following an investigation, Medina was terminated for falsifying his timecards. (Claudy Dep. 94.)

Like Medina, Johnson's timecard for July 8, 2009, reported that he worked twelve hours that day. (Hughley Dep. 96, Ex. I.) According to Claudy's observations, however, Johnson left at 5:10 p.m.⁷ (Claudy Dep. 76, Ex. 7.) Consequently, Johnson was removed from the work site and instructed to report to ITT offices in Fort Wayne to meet with Hughley and Claudy, where Johnson insisted that he worked the full twelve hours reported on his timecard.⁸ (Claudy Dep. 81.) In this meeting, Johnson also stated that one reason for the discrepancy in his timecard was that he would stay over with Medina to train and do his reports, which contradicted Medina's statement. (Hughley Dep. 150-51, Ex. I.) Moreover, when deposed, Johnson continued to maintain that he worked from his home that evening by possibly using his VPN remote computer access to send emails, participate in security training on his ITT computer, and do reports. (Johnson Dep. 118-23.) ITT's computer system, however, does not show that Johnson did training on July 8,2009. (Beeson Aff. ¶ 13, Ex. A.) ITT also has no record of Johnson's VPN remote access use on that day either. (Hughley Dep. 99-101.)

On August 11, 2009, Hughley made the decision to terminate Johnson for violating an ITT policy concerning falsification or misrepresentation of company documents. (Hughley Dep. 121, 151, Ex. J.) Johnson maintains that ITT made a mistake when it terminated...