Nyambi v. Delta Airlines Inc.

AMULE NYAMBI, Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIRLINES, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant.

No. 2:21-cv-00369-JHC

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

May 6, 2022

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

John H. Chun United States District Judge.

I. Introduction

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Delta Airlines Inc.'s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. # 20. Plaintiff Amule Nyambi opposes the motion. Dkt. # 24. The Court has considered the materials filed in support of, and in opposition to, the motion, and the file herein. Being fully advised, the Court GRANTS the motion.

II. Background

Amule Nyambi worked for Delta at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport from 2011 to 2017 as a customer service agent and, later, as an “Agent in Charge.” Declaration of Gary Gunnell (Gunnell Decl.) at ¶¶ 1, 3; Declaration of Shapero (Shapero Decl.), Ex. A at 31. In November 2016, Nyambi complained to his supervisor that a coworker, Aleks Ivanekov, accused him of treating another coworker unfairly. Declaration of Shane Bogni (Bogni Decl.), Ex. A. In December 2016, a supervisor counseled Nyambi and a coworker, Mohamed, ^[1] after the two yelled at each other at work. Id. And in January 2017, a supervisor counseled Nyambi and a coworker, Eric Shields, after they yelled each other at work; Nyambi alleged that Shields called him a “stupid African.” Id. Nyambi testified in his deposition that both Ivanekov and Mohamed threatened him and tried to physically fight him. Shapero Decl., Ex. A at 193, 207.

In early February 2017, Nyambi's coworker Carolyn Carter told Delta supervisors that Nyambi was sharing sexually explicit videos of a coworker in the workplace and that he threatened her with voodoo and said that he would make her “life a living hell if [he] found out [she was] the one who told them what [he was] doing.” Bogni Decl., Ex. C. She said in a written statement that Nyambi's threat left her feeling “VERY uncomfortable” and “somewhat scared” because she does not know “what this man is capable of doing.” Id.

On February 8, 2017, Nyambi wrote to Delta supervisors, Samantha Vergara, Shane Bogni, and Georgianna Murphy, stating that he was stepping down from his role as Agent in Charge due to a hostile work environment. Bogni Decl., Ex. A, B. Supervisors asked Nyambi what he meant by a hostile work environment and Nyambi referred to the incident involving Shields. Bogni Decl., Ex. A. The supervisors asked Nyambi for a written statement about the incident and he refused, saying that he had put the incident behind him. Id.

Delta investigated Carter's allegations. Gunnell Decl. at ¶ 9. Delta interviewed employees identified as having knowledge of those allegations. Id. In a written statement, James Davis reported that while he was at work, Nyambi asked if he knew a female coworker who had walked past them. Gunnell Decl., Ex. D. When Davis said yes, Nyambi said that she was his “ex-lover” and called her “a whore.” Id. Davis said that Nyambi then opened an application on his phone called “CALCULATOR” and showed Davis sexually explicit photographs of the woman. Id. Davis also said that Nyambi forwarded him a sexually explicit video on Facebook, which did not show any Delta coworkers. Id.

Delta interviewed the female coworker identified as being in the photographs Davis saw, and she provided Delta with a written statement. Gunnell Decl., Ex. E. The statement says that when they were together, Nyambi took photographs and videos of their sexual acts without her consent and that she heard from others, such as her friend Mercedes Tramble-Williams, that Nyambi was showing the photographs and videos to others at work without her consent. Gunnell Id. The statement also mentions that Nyambi often spoke about voodoo. Id.

Delta interviewed Tramble-Williams, who reported that she heard from coworker Jordan Clements that he saw sexually explicit videos of her friend and of another female coworker. Gunnell Decl., Ex. F. She said she did not know Nyambi and that she told the two women that their sexually explicit content had been shared at work. Id. She said that same day she received an angry call from Nyambi during which he yelled at her, told her she would lose her job, and questioned her on who told her about the video. Id. After the call, she spoke with Clements, who told her that Nyambi told him that Nyambi knew Tramble-Williams and he knew voodoo, which Tramble-Williams interpreted as an attempt to scare her. Id.

Delta also interviewed Clements. Gunnell Decl., Ex. G. Clements said that Nyambi confronted him about telling supervisors about the sexually explicit content, threatened him with voodoo, and told him that he and his family would become homeless again. Id. Clements said, as a result, he blocked Nyambi's number and avoided him in the workplace. Id. Tramble-Williams said that Clements told her that he had seen a sexually explicit video; but during his phone interview with Delta supervisors Clements denied having seen any photographs or videos. Id.

Finally, Delta interviewed Nyambi. Gunnell Decl., Ex. I. Nyambi denied showing sexually explicit photographs or videos of Delta employees in the workplace. Id. He stated that he had a conversation with Carter about voodoo but denied making any threats against her. Id.

Based on its investigation, Delta determined that Nyambi had violated Delta's workplace policies. Bogni Decl., Ex. D; Gunnell Decl., Ex. J, K. Delta terminated Nyambi's employment on April 21, 2017. Declaration of Shapero (Shapero Decl.), Ex. A at 137.

Nyambi sued Delta, bringing claims under Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) for discriminatory termination based on race and national origin and a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Dkt. # 1. Delta moves for summary judgment. Dkt. # 20.

III. Analysis

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is proper only if the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, demonstrates “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Galen v. Cnty. of L.A., 477 F.3d 652, 658 (9th Cir. 2007). The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of a claim in the case on which the nonmoving party has the burden of proof. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323.

A fact is “material” if it might affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A factual dispute is “genuine” if the evidence is such that reasonable persons could disagree about whether the facts claimed by the moving party are true. Aydin Corp. v. Loral Corp., 718 F.2d 897, 902 (9th Cir. 1983). “Uncorroborated allegations and ‘self-serving testimony' will not create a genuine issue of material fact.” Heko Servs., Inc. v. ChemTrack Alaska, Inc., 418 F.Supp.3d 656, 660 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (quoting Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002)).

The moving party bears the initial burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. If the moving party meets its burden, then the non-moving party “must make a showing sufficient to establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence of the essential elements of [their] case that [they] must prove at trial.” Galen, 477 F.3d at 658. The Court is “required to view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the [non-moving] party.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007).

The Ninth Circuit “has set a high standard for the granting of summary judgment in employment discrimination cases.” Schnidrig v. Columbia Mach., Inc., 80 F.3d 1406, 1410 (9th Cir. 1996). Courts should “emphasize[] the importance of zealously guarding an employee's right to a full trial, since discrimination claims are frequently difficult to prove without a full airing of the evidence and an opportunity to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.” McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103, 1112 (9th Cir. 2004). This means an employee need produce “very little evidence” to survive summary judgment. Schnidrig, 80 F.3d at 1410 (quoting Lam v. University of Hawaii, 40 F.3d 1551, 1563 (9th Cir. 1994)).

B. Title VII and WLAD Discriminatory Termination Claims

Title VII^[2] and WLAD^[3] protect an employee against discriminatory termination based on race or national origin.

1. Title VII

In order to establish a disparate treatment claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must offer (1) direct or circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent, or (2) indirect evidence of discrimination within the McDonnell Douglas^[4] framework. Freyd v. Univ. of Oregon, 990 F.3d 1211, 1228 (9th Cir. 2021). Because Plaintiff does not offer direct or circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent, the Court proceeds under the McDonnell Douglas framework.

“The McDonnell Douglas framework contains three, burden-shifting steps.” Id.

At the first step, the plaintiff must make a prima facie case of discrimination, which requires a showing that “(1) [they are] a member of a protected class; (2) [they are] qualified for [their] position [and doing satisfactory work]; (3) [they] experienced an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside [their] protected class were treated more favorably.”

Id. (quoting Fonseca v. Sysco FoodServs. of Ariz., Inc., 374 F.3d 840, 847 (9th Cir. 2004)); Norman v. Eastfield Min Quong, Inc., 152 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 1998). If a...