Owens v. CACI Int'l

1

JERRY OWENS, Plaintiff, v. CACI INTERNATIONAL INC. et al., Defendants.

No. 3:21-cv-05570-DGE

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

May 26, 2023

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO 26)

David G. Estudillo, United States District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 26.) The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the record.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND^[1]

A. Gilmore's Flight and Plaintiff's Anonymous Complaint

CACI is an information technology company and defense contractor that provides services to various clients, including the United States Government, which is CACI's largest customer. (Dkt. No. 27-1 at 17-18.) Plaintiff's employment with CACI began in January 2016 following CACI's purchase of a business unit of Plaintiff's then employer, L3 Communications Holdings. (Id. at 12-13.) Plaintiff was an at-will employee. (Dkt. No. 27-7 at 16.) Plaintiff signed a form acknowledging he reviewed CACI's Standards of Ethics and Business Conduct. (Id. at 19-20.)

CACI has offices in the Middle East, and CACI employees are often required to travel for work. Employees of CACI travelling to Iraq are required to use military transportation for international travel. (Dkt. No. 29-1 at 2.) “Flying commercial is reserved solely for personnel ending in Kuwait due to VISA constraints.” (Id.) [A] ‘Mil Air waiver' is only used if there are no seats available on the CRC flight. This is so that [t]he person is not delayed arriving into theater.” (Dkt. No. 27-6 at 8.)

In early 2018, System Administrator Paul Gilmore travelled to Iraq on a commercial flight. On April 3, 2018, Deputy Program Manager Richard Needham sent Gilmore an email asking Gilmore to provide a formal email summary concerning the Mil-Air Waiver he used to travel. (Dkt. 29-1 at 4-5.) Needham asked Gilmore to explain how he modified the waiver and who authorized him to submit the waiver “without running it through the proper chain of command.” (Id.)

Gilmore responded to Needham's email the same day. (Id. at 3-4.) Gilmore explained he had already purchased a non-refundable ticket when he learned his waiver request was being denied. (Id. at 4.) Gilmore stated he purchased his ticket as soon as he was cleared by the company's medical staff to travel because his travel agent informed him the ticket price “could balloon from $2500 to in between $4500 and $5500” if he waited until closer to his departure date to buy a ticket. (Id. at 3.)

Gilmore stated that at a briefing shortly before his trip, his waiver was rejected because it did not include the proper language, and he understood he would be required to take a military flight even though he had already purchased a commercial ticket. (Id.) Gilmore said he submitted a new waiver with the proper language for proofreading, and he was informed that it would take several days for approval. (Id. at 4.) Gilmore stated he was concerned the company would lose money on the non-refundable ticket, and informed his supervisors he had modified the waiver so he could make his scheduled flight. (Id.) Gilmore apologized for his conduct, stating that his behavior was “by no means” an attempt to commit forgery, and his only intention was for his updated travel memo to be proofread prior to being resubmitted. (Id.)

Needham responded to Gilmore's email the same day, stating he recognized the “Catch 22” situation Gilmore was in and acknowledged Gilmore was under pressure to provide a correctly worded memo before his flight. (Id. at 2.) However, Needham informed Gilmore that making changes without following the correct process “was wrong even if it meant impact to departure.” (Id.)

Plaintiff was not included on the emails concerning Gilmore's travel situation, which Needham forwarded Plaintiff at his request. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 5.)

On April 12, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an anonymous complaint on the website of Convercent, a third-party administrator that manages CACI's internal complaint system.^[2](Dkt. No. 27-6 at 2-3.) Plaintiff accused Gilmore of falsifying a document so he could fly commercial and then “play[ing] it off” as an accident. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff stated Gilmore “knew exactly what he was doing” and should have been investigated and his employment terminated for a “grievous breach of ethics.” (Id.) Plaintiff criticized Needham's response to the incident, saying Needham “did little more than email [Gilmore] that he shouldn't do stuff like that.” (Id.) Plaintiff stated Needham improperly overlooked the incident, despite the recommendation of other managers that Gilmore be terminated, because Needham was “desperate to fill slots in SWA (Southwest Asia).” (Id.)

Plaintiff stated Needham “may have covered up or glossed over several key points” so Gilmore's explanation would seem more plausible. (Id.) Plaintiff claimed Gilmore “knew full well what he was doing” and exhibited a lack of moral and ethical standards. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff further claimed Gilmore was a possible security risk, arguing that his security clearance should have been suspended pending review, and stating that “[i]f he will do this for his own personal comfort what will he do for money.” (Id.) Plaintiff argued that Gilmore was a sub-par employee who played the “Race Card” to maintain his position. (Id.)

Plaintiff's complaint was investigated by Human Resources Business Partner Michael Griffith and Talent Acquisition Operations Specialist Amy Pedroni. (Dkt. No. 29-2.) Griffith and Pedroni reviewed the emails between Needham and Gilmore and had follow up discussions with Needham, Program Manager Dave Ely, and Vice President of Workplace Relations Brian Churchey. (Id. at 2.) Griffith and Pedroni found Gilmore acted in the company's best interests, since had he acted otherwise, his departure would have been delayed by a week, costing the company around $5,000.00. (Id. at 3.) Griffith and Pedroni concluded Gilmore's conduct was “[v]alid, without nefarious intent”, and recommended several measures to ensure CACI's waiver form could not be modified and to educate company personnel about proper travel procedures (Id.) The investigation was closed on June 18, 2018. (Id.)

B. Gilmore's Complaint about Plaintiff

On June 8, 2018, Gilmore submitted an anonymous complaint about Plaintiff via the Convercent website. (Dkt. No. 29-3.) Gilmore also complained directly to management. (Dkt. No. 30 at 2-3.) Gilmore stated Plaintiff was making him and other African American employees uncomfortable by speaking to them in a patronizing manner, affecting a condescending tone, and using racial epithets. (Dkt. No. 29-3 at 2.) Gilmore said Plaintiff used Needham as an “instrument of intimidation” any time Plaintiff's leadership was questioned, and always added a racial dimension to any conversation. (Id.) Gilmore stated Plaintiff called him “boy” on several occasions, which he considered equivalent to calling an African American a “N*****”. (Id.)

The first incident cited by Gilmore occurred during a telephone conversation with Plaintiff on April 13, 2018. (Id.) During a disagreement about whether Gilmore needed to submit a status report prior to travel, Gilmore told Plaintiff he was planning to email a third party for clarification. (Id.) Gilmore contends Plaintiff then cursed at him and stated “Boy just shut up and do what I say.” (Id.) The second incident occurred during a conversation between Gilmore and Plaintiff on June 8, 2018. (Id.) Gilmore claims he questioned Plaintiff's directive to hand over certain passwords to an employee Gilmore felt was not authorized for administrative access. (Id.) Gilmore claims that after he told Plaintiff he wanted to verify the directive with Needham, Plaintiff cursed at him again and stated “God Damn it boy you will do I as I say.” (Id.) (sic).

Gilmore claimed Plaintiff's “unprofessional attitude and behavior” made the workplace a hostile environment, and provided a list of eleven other employees who had negative experiences with Plaintiff. (Id. at 2-3.)

Plaintiff disputed Gilmore's account, admitting to cursing during a conversation with Gilmore, but denying using the term “boy”. (Dkt. No. 30 at 2.) Ms. Pedroni, who interviewed Plaintiff and Gilmore following Gilmore's complaint, stated Plaintiff came off as defensive, and she expressed doubts about his credibility. (Dkt. Nos. 27-2 at 2; 30 at 2.) Pedroni found Gilmore to be credible. (Dkt. No. 30 at 2.)

Gilmore's complaint was investigated and found to be valid. (Dkt. No. 29-4 at 2.) Plaintiff was issued a written warning and demoted from his position as Operations Lead. (Dkt. Nos. 27-7 at 2; 29-4 at 2.) Plaintiff signed the warning letter, stated he was taking full responsibility for his actions, and said he was sorry his actions caused the company to lose faith in his ability to function in his position. (Dkt. No. 27-8 at 2.)

Plaintiff underwent a performance appraisal shortly after Gilmore's complaint was resolved. (Dkt. No. 27-5.) Plaintiff's appraisal was largely positive, with Needham calling him a “very valuable” employee and finding he consistently met expectations. (Id. at 2.) Needham noted some of Plaintiff's actions did “not reflect very well” on him, but that those actions were not representative of who Plaintiff was as an employee. (Id.) Needham encouraged Plaintiff to learn from the incident, move past it, and continue to perform well. (Id.) Plaintiff stated he disagreed with the outcome of his encounter with Gilmore, but said he was moving on from the experience and sought to be a productive team member. (Id.)

C Sturgis'...