McDaniel v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.

JAMES J. MCDANIEL v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, D/B/A "AMTRAK"

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-5845 SECTION: "G"(1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

December 22, 2016

ORDER

In this litigation, Plaintiff James McDaniel ("McDaniel") alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of age, race, and/or gender by his employer, Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation, d/b/a "Amtrak" ("Amtrak"), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), and Louisiana state law.¹ McDaniel also alleges that he was retaliated against by Amtrak for filing an internal complaint with Amtrak and a complaint of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in violation of Title VII and Louisiana state law.² Pending before the Court are Amtrak's "Motion for Summary Judgment"³ and "Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Statement of Disputed Material Facts."⁴ Having considered the pending motions, the memoranda in support and in opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court will deny Amtrak's "Motion toStrike Plaintiff's Statement of Disputed Material Facts"⁵ and grant Amtrak's "Motion for Summary Judgment."⁶

I. Background

A. Factual Background

McDaniel, a white male born on February 15, 1955, has been employed by Amtrak since 1988.⁷ In 2006, McDaniel was promoted to the position of Assistant Superintendent, Passenger Services, of the Southern Division ("Assistant Superintendent").⁸ According to McDaniel, at some time prior to December 2, 2013, Amtrak decided to implement a reduction in force ("2013 RIF") in order to eliminate certain management positions, including McDaniel's Assistant Superintendent position.⁹ Simultaneously, Amtrak created a new position of Route Director in New Orleans ("Route Director"), a position which McDaniel alleges had substantially similar but fewer duties and responsibilities as his former Assistant Superintendent position.¹⁰

Upon learning of the intention to eliminate his position, McDaniel states that he applied for the newly created position of Route Director, but the position was awarded to Anella Popo ("Popo") instead.¹¹ McDaniel avers that Popo was a 42-year-old African American female who had worked for Amtrak for less than fourteen years at the time of her selection.¹² McDaniel allegesthat he was more qualified for the position than Popo "based on his depth of experience, knowledge, past positions with the company, performance, and temperament."¹³

McDaniel further argues that he applied and was not selected for at least five more positions prior to his position being eliminated.¹⁴ Instead, McDaniel asserts that four of the individuals selected were African-American females, and three were "significantly younger" than McDaniel.¹⁵ On December 2, 2013, McDaniel, who was 58 years old at the time, was terminated from management pursuant to the 2013 RIF.¹⁶ Following his termination, McDaniel "exercised his Union craft seniority that entitled him to a non-management position," and was assigned to a non-management position at Amtrak with substantially less compensation and benefits.¹⁷

On December 23, 2013, McDaniel sent Amtrak an internal complaint of discrimination concerning his non-selection for Route Manager and the other five positions for which he applied.¹⁸ McDaniel avers that the average age of those affected by the 2013 RIF was 57.3 years old.¹⁹ On August 20, 2014, Amtrak sent a letter to McDaniel, in which, according to McDaniel, Amtrak stated that its "investigation did not uncover credible evidence to support Mr. McDaniel's claims of unfair treatment based on race, gender, or age."²⁰ McDaniel further alleges that he continued to apply for Amtrak management positions after filing his internal Amtrak complaintand an EEOC complaint, but that he was not selected for those positions.²¹ McDaniel contends that he was not selected for those positions in retaliation for his complaints of discrimination and/or on the basis of his age, race, and/or gender.²²

B. Procedural Background

On June 18, 2014, McDaniel filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC.²³ On October 7, 2015, McDaniel filed a second Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC regarding his non-selection for other positions that occurred after he filed his first EEOC complaint.²⁴ On September 17, 2015, the EEOC issued Notices of Right to Sue in connection with McDaniel's two Charges of Discrimination.²⁵

On November 12, 2015, McDaniel filed his Complaint against Amtrak.²⁶ McDaniel also alleged Amtrak engaged in intentional discrimination on the basis of race and/or gender, age discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Louisiana state law.²⁷ The case was originally assigned to Section "C" of the Eastern District of Louisiana.²⁸ After the Court granted Amtrak additional time to respond to the Complaint,²⁹ Amtrak filed an Answer on December 30, 2015.³⁰On January 6, 2016, this case was reassigned to Section "K" of the Eastern District of Louisiana,³¹ and on March 24, 2016, this case was reassigned to this Court.³²

On November 8, 2016, Amtrak filed the instant motion for summary judgment.³³ On November 15, 2016, McDaniel filed an opposition.³⁴ In his opposition, McDaniel waived his claims concerning six positions he was not selected for and averred that he now only asserts violations of Title VII, the ADEA, and Louisiana law for three positions: (1) Route Director, Crescent/New Orleans; (2) Crew Base Manager, New Orleans; and (3) Onboard Services Manager, New Orleans.³⁵ On November 22, 2016, Amtrak filed a reply.³⁶

On November 21, 2016, Amtrak filed the motion to strike McDaniel's statement of disputed material facts that was attached to his opposition to Amtrak's motion for summary judgment.³⁷ Amtrak also filed a motion to expedite the submission date of its motion to strike so that it would be considered along with Amtrak's motion for summary judgment.³⁸ On November 22, 2016, the Court denied Amtrak's motion for an expedited submission date, and instead set the submission date for both motions for December 7, 2016.³⁹ The Court ordered that any oppositionto Amtrak's motion to strike must be filed by December 2, 2016.⁴⁰ On December 2, 2016, McDaniel filed an opposition to Amtrak's motion to strike.⁴¹

II. Parties' Arguments

A. Amtrak's Motion to Strike McDaniel's Statement of Disputed Material Facts

1. Amtrak's Arguments in Support of the Motion

In this motion, Amtrak argues that this Court should strike McDaniel's "Statement of Disputed Material Facts" ("Statement") attached to his opposition to Amtrak's "Motion for Summary Judgment."⁴² Amtrak contends that McDaniel's Statement is not comprised of statements of fact, but of "a series of 25 questions" without citations to the record.⁴³ According to Amtrak, Local Rule 56.2 requires that "[a]ny opposition to a motion for summary judgment must include a separate and concise statement of the material facts which the opponent contends present a genuine issue."⁴⁴ Amtrak argues that Local Rule 56.2 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) "requires more than simply alleging that a dispute exists," and instead requires McDaniel to point to specific evidence and parts of the record that establish a genuine issue of material fact for trial.⁴⁵ Amtrak avers that McDaniel's Statement does not meet these requirements, and thus must be stricken by the Court.⁴⁶

2. McDaniel's Arguments in Opposition to the Motion

McDaniel argues that, in opposition to Amtrak's motion for summary judgment, McDaniel disputed more than twenty facts listed in Amtrak's "Statement of Uncontested Material Facts."⁴⁷ McDaniel avers that he also provided a twelve page detailed summary of the material facts in this case with 59 footnotes referencing depositions, affidavits, and other evidence as support.⁴⁸ According to McDaniel, all Local Rule 56.2 requires is "a separate and concise statement of the material facts which the opponent contends present a genuine issue."⁴⁹

McDaniel further asserts that Amtrak seeks to strike his entire Statement without addressing each of the twenty five facts he alleged, and instead "makes general objections" against some and specifically identifies only five statements that it finds objectionable.⁵⁰ McDaniel states that his counsel chose to list the disputed facts in the form of questions to make it clear to the Court what factual issues exist that need to be resolved by a trier of fact.⁵¹ McDaniel avers that the stylistic difference between listing disputed facts as a question, e.g., "[w]as Plaintiff more qualified . . .", and Amtrak's preferred format of listing disputed facts as a statement, e.g., "[w]hether Plaintiff was more qualified . . .", is not a proper basis for a motion to strike.⁵² McDaniel also contests whether any of its listed questions of fact are irrelevant or improperly go to the ultimate issue at trial.⁵³

B. Amtrak's Motion for Summary Judgment

1. Amtrak's Arguments in Support of the Motion⁵⁴

In this motion, Amtrak argues that McDaniel's claims fail as a matter of law because his "entire theory of liability rests on nothing more than his subjective belief that, if Amtrak selected employees who were not white males as old or older than him for several of the positions he applied for, it must have been discrimination."⁵⁵ Amtrak avers that discrimination and retaliation claims brought under Louisiana state law are "governed by the same analysis" as federal discrimination and retaliation claims.⁵⁶ Accordingly, Amtrak addresses McDaniel's federal claims and state law claims simultaneously.⁵⁷

a. Disparate Treatment Claim under Title VII and Louisiana Law

First, Amtrak avers that to succeed on his disparate treatment claim for a failure to promote, McDaniel must show that he was "clearly better qualified" than the selected candidate, and that "mere subjective speculation will not suffice."⁵⁸ Amtrak asserts that McDaniel applied to, and was not...