Powell v. Am. Airlines

MYCHAEL POWELL, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 17-1740 (CKK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

June 26, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mychael Powell ("Plaintiff") brings this employment discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, see 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. ("ADEA"), and the Americans with Disabilities Act, see 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. ("ADA"). This matter is before the Court on Defendant American Airlines, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 40. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, an African American male, Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 1, "has been diagnosed with a Psychiatric Disability (stress disorder)," id. at 2; Pl.'s Opp'n (ECF No. 43) at 1. From August 29, 2016 to May 5, 2017, American Airlines, Inc. ("Defendant" or "the Company") employed Plaintiff as a Customer Service Manager ("CSM") at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Def. American Airlines, Inc.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (ECF No. 40-2, "SMF") ¶ 1. Among other duties, the CSM managed Defendant's customer service employees at National Airport. Id. ¶ 2.

Defendant "expects all its employees, and particularly its managers, to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity." Id. ¶ 3. Its "Rules of Conduct specifically prohibit misrepresentation of facts and dishonesty of any kind in relation with the Company." Id. ¶ 4; see generally Mounivong Decl (ECF No. 40-3), Ex. A.

Marissa Garcia ("Garcia") held the position of Manager on Duty in the Customer Care Department at National Airport. Garcia Decl. (ECF No. 40-4) ¶ 1. She "led a team of 10 [CSMs] and approximately 300 frontline employees." Id. ¶ 2. She was the Manager on Duty on April 9, 2017, and Plaintiff reported directly to her. Id. ¶ 3.

"A jetbridge is the enclosed, moveable connector between the terminal and the aircraft" through which passengers board and deplane. SMF ¶ 7. When an aircraft reaches the terminal, an airline employee maneuvers a jetbridge so that it is flush with the aircraft. Id. ¶ 8. On April 9, 2017, Republic Airlines, a regional carrier with which Defendant had a service agreement, notified Defendant that one of its aircraft arriving at Gate 44C was damaged by a jetbridge. See id. ¶¶ 5-6.

Garcia instructed Plaintiff to investigate the incident and to identify the customer service employee who met the Republic flight and operated the jetbridge. SMF ¶¶ 10-11. When Garcia spoke with Plaintiff later that day, Plaintiff "claimed to not know who met the flight." Id. ¶ 12. Garcia then instructed Plaintiff "to determine who met the flight and complete an incident report summarizing his findings." Id. ¶ 13.

Plaintiff submitted a report to Garcia on April 10, 2017. Id. ¶ 14; see generally Garcia Decl., Ex. A. His report indicated that the Republic flight arrived at Gate 44 at 2:18 p.m. on April 9, 2017. SMF ¶ 14. Plaintiff asserted that the aircraft had been damaged prior to its arrival at National Airport. Id. ¶ 15. The report did not identify the employee who met the inbound flight, id. ¶ 16, and when Garcia again asked Plaintiff who met the flight, Plaintiff claimed he did not know, id. ¶ 17.

In an effort to identify the employee who operated the jetbridge, Garcia sought the assistance of Robert Moriey ("Morley"), Corporate Security-Global Investigations Senior Investigator. Id. ¶ 18; Garcia Decl. ¶ 15. Morley "reviewed video of Gate 44C as well as badge swipe data to determine who accessed the secure door to the gate." Mounivong Decl. ¶ 6; see generally id., Ex. B. He "reported that on April 9, 2017, [Plaintiff] opened the door to Gate 44C at 2:15pm and entered the jetbridge," SMF ¶ 20, and exited the jetbridge at 2:19 p.m., see id. ¶¶ 20, 22. Although the secured door remained open during that time, no one else entered the jetbridge. Id. ¶ 21. Based on video and badge swipe records, Morley found that "no one other than [Plaintiff] accessed or entered the jetbridge at Gate 44C between 1:56 pm and 2:30 pm" on April 9, 2017. Id. ¶ 23.

On April 18, 2017, Human Resources Specialist Ubon Mounivong and Manager on Duty Chase Pierson met with Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 24; Mounivong Decl. ¶ 11. Mounivong and Pierson "asked [Plaintiff] to describe what happened" and Plaintiff responded that "he did not operate the jetbridge to meet the aircraft." Mounivong Decl. ¶ 11; see SMF ¶ 25. And "[e]ven after Mounivong and Pierson disclosed . . . evidence . . . that [Plaintiff] was the only employee whoaccessed the jetbridge around the time of the incident, [Plaintiff] insisted it was not him." SMF ¶ 26. Mounivong "did not find [Plaintiff's] statements to be credible." Mounivong Decl. ¶ 13.

On May 5, 2017, Garcia and Manager on Duty Jeff Fontenot met with Plaintiff. SMF ¶ 28. They "explained to [Plaintiff] that the badge swipe data and video footage indicated that he was the only person who could have operated the jetbridge at the time in question." Id. ¶ 29. Still, Plaintiff denied involvement. Id. ¶ 30. Garcia concluded that Plaintiff "had not been honest during the Company's investigation of the incident." Garcia Decl. ¶ 17.

Effective May 5, 2017, Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment. SMF ¶ 32. In relevant part, its written notice read:

On April 9, 2017 you were the CSM on Duty in North Pier (Terminal C). You were notified to investigate . . . damage . . . for an inbound flight that arrived on Gate 44. The investigation you completed was incomplete and did not specify who the agent was as the time the aircraft arrived. You stated that you were not able to get this information because the information was no longer in the system after 48 hours. However, it was later discovered through management's investigation that you were the individual who met the aircraft when it arrived. The evidence uncovered during the investigation supports that you were the one who operated the jetbridge and caused the damage to the aircraft. When your manager asked you if you operated the jetbridge, your response was "No I did not." You stated you did go all the way down the jetbridge, however, you were not the one who operated it or met the aircraft. Your statements made during the investigation were deemed not credible. This is not the behavior that American Airlines expects or condones from a member of management.

Garcia Decl., Ex. B (emphasis added).

Plaintiff sought reinstatement and sent Defendant a letter on May 8, 2017. SMF ¶ 33. He stated that, "[b]ased on [Defendant's] evidence," he "agree[d] that [he] was the person that met the inbound flight at gate 44." Mounivong Decl., Ex. C. However, he maintained that thedamage occurred prior to the Republic flight's arrival, and attributed his own conduct to stress. Id., Ex. C; see SMF ¶¶ 33-34.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows 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). The party seeking summary judgment "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). To defeat summary judgment, the non-moving party must "designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 324 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The mere existence of a factual dispute is insufficient to preclude summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). A dispute is "genuine" only if a reasonable fact-finder could find for the non-moving party; a fact is "material" only if it is capable of affecting the outcome of the litigation. Id. at 248; Laningham v. U.S. Navy, 813 F.2d 1236, 1241 (D.C. Cir. 1987). In assessing a party's motion, the court must "view the facts and draw reasonable inferences 'in the light most favorable to the party opposing the summary judgment motion.'" Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007) (alterations omitted) (quoting United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962) (per curiam)).

B. Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion

The Court's October 2, 2019 Order (ECF No. 38) advised the parties of their obligation to comply fully with Local Civil Rule 7(h). Further, the Court advised that the party responding to a statement of material facts must respond to each paragraph with a correspondingly numbered paragraph indicating whether that paragraph is admitted or denied. In addition, the Court's November 2, 2019 Order (ECF No. 41) advised Plaintiff that the Court would treat the moving party's assertions of fact as true unless he submits his own affidavits or documentary evidence to contradict them.

Plaintiff's response to Defendant's summary judgment is deficient in two respects. First, his response (ECF No. 43) to Defendant American Airlines, Inc.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (ECF No. 40-2) does not comply with Local Civil Rule 7(h) and the Court's October 2, 2019 Order. Second, his response consists of unsupported assertions, see generally Pl.'s Opp'n, to which he attaches two exhibits: a performance appraisal dated December 31, 2016, see id. (ECF No. 43 at 4-6), and some sort of diagram, see id. (ECF No. 43 at 8), with no explanation of their relevance. Accordingly, given Plaintiff's failure to demonstrate a genuine dispute as to any material fact, the Court treats Defendant's assertions of fact as admitted.

C. Discrimination Based on Race and Sex

An employer may not "discharge any individual . . . because of [his] race [or] sex[.]" 42 U.S.C. §...