Redmon v. Flexsol Packaging Corp.

REGGIE REDMON, Plaintiff, v. FLEXSOL PACKAGING CORPORATION, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-CV-00124-KDB-DSC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION

February 27, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on "Defendant's Motion to Strike Exhibit A from Plaintiff's Complaint and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)," Doc. 12, and "Defendant's Second Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)," Doc. 13, and the parties' associated briefs and exhibits, Docs. 14, 16 and 17.

This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and these Motions are now ripe for consideration.

Having fully considered the arguments, the record, and the applicable authority, the undersigned will grant Defendant's Motion to Strike and respectfully recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be denied, as discussed below.

I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Accepting the allegations of the Verified Amended Complaint, Doc. 10, as true, Plaintiff Reggie Redmon is an African-American male and a lifelong, devoted Baptist. Plaintiff observes Sundays as the Sabbath and abstains from participating in any secular work on Sundays. Every Sunday, Plaintiff volunteers as an associate minister at a Baptist Church, where he plays the piano and drums and teaches Sunday school.

On or about December 12, 2012, Defendant Flexsol Packaging Corporation hired Plaintiff to work in its Statesville plant as a Repel Operator. At the start of his employment, Plaintiff informed his Plant Manager Jim Redman and his then direct supervisor Mike Martin that he could not engage in secular work on Sundays because of his religious beliefs and his service as an associate minister at a nearby Baptist church. Redman and Martin are Caucasian. They accommodated Plaintiff's request and did not schedule him to work on Sundays. Several of Plaintiff's co-workers who wanted overtime hours agreed to work on Sundays.

Until June 2016, Plaintiff maintained a good working relationship with his co-workers and supervisors. He did not receive any disciplinary actions and was recognized within the plant for his positive performance.

In June 2016, Plaintiff witnessed his co-worker David Hensley tie a rope into a noose. Hensley is Caucasian. Plaintiff told Hensley that nooses had a racist history and it offended him. He also said that other African-American employees would be offended if they saw the noose. Hensley dismissed Plaintiff's concerns stating that "slavery happened a long time ago." Doc. 10 at ¶¶ 14-15. Plaintiff reported the incident to administrative supervisor David Johnson and to one of the plant's Leadmen, Nick Hartsell. Johnson and Hartsell are Caucasian. Both Johnson and Hartsell tried to diffuse Plaintiff's concerns, telling him that Hensley was "stupid," and simply "did not know any better." Id. at ¶ 18. They said it would be best for Plaintiff and other African-American employees to just ignore him. Id. Despite Plaintiff's complaint, Defendant did not take any corrective action against Hensley.

Soon after Defendant failed to discipline Hensley, Plaintiff witnessed him make another noose at work. And over time, Plaintiff heard Hensley make several racist comments including associating African-Americans with monkeys. Plaintiff complained to Johnson about how offensive Hensley's conduct was towards him and other African-American employees. But each time Plaintiff spoke with Johnson about Hensley's conduct, Johnson continued to say that Hensley simply did not know any better and that it would be best for Plaintiff and other African-American employees to ignore him. Despite Plaintiff's continued complaints about Hensley's racism, Defendant never disciplined him.

Plaintiff continued to witness Hensley engaging in racist behavior at work, including wearing a white sheet over his head resembling a Ku Klux Klan hood. In March 2017, Plaintiff shared his concerns about Hensley's conduct with a Latino employee known as "Chico." "Chico" told Plaintiff about Hensley's frequent use of racial slurs towards him such as "wetback." "Chico" also showed Plaintiff a recent picture of Hensley on his cell phone. "Chico" then forwarded the same picture to Plaintiff's cell phone showing Hensley in his FlexSol uniform and wearing a white sheet over his head.

When Plaintiff made several complaints to Johnson about Hensley's continued racist conduct, Plant Manager Redman and another supervisor Tony David began to build a disciplinary record against him in an effort to pressure him to stop reporting Hensley's conduct or to terminate him and replace him with a Caucasian employee. David is Caucasian. In July 2017, following a plant-wide inspection by the Food and Drug Administration, Redman wrote up Plaintiff and suspended him for three days for failing to cover his beard with a net, even though he had the net resting below his chin. Redman did not discipline Hensley who was not wearing a beard net at all, or another Caucasian employee whose beard net was resting on top of his head during theinspection. All employees who were on the plant floor during the inspection were required to comply with those safety measures.

In November 2017, as Plaintiff concluded his shift, David approached him and asked "you got my machine running, boy?" Id. at ¶ 35. Plaintiff asked David to repeat himself. David again referred to him as "boy," using an even more offensive tone of voice. Id. at ¶ 36. Plaintiff told David that referring to him as "boy" when he was obviously an adult was racially offensive. David did not apologize.

Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff complained to Johnson about David's racist comments but Defendant took no corrective action. Meanwhile, Plaintiff continued to witness Hensley make nooses, wear white sheets over his head, and make racist statements. Despite continued complaints to Johnson and Johnson's later reporting of Plaintiff's complaints to Human Resources and Plant Manager Redman, nothing changed.

In late February 2018, David replaced Martin as Plaintiff's direct supervisor. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff informed David that he could not work on Sundays because of his religious beliefs and service as a pastor. Unlike Plaintiff's former direct supervisor, David immediately opposed his scheduling request. David told Plaintiff that he would have to work on Sundays as scheduled.

David also continued to build a falsified disciplinary record against Plaintiff. David approached Plaintiff claiming that he had reviewed Martin's notes concerning his work performance and was not sure how many points Plaintiff had on his disciplinary record because he could not read Martin's handwriting. When Plaintiff insisted that he maintained a good record, David, without providing any justification for doing so, said that he would just put five-and-a-halfpoints on Plaintiff's record. At that time, Defendant terminated employees for accumulating a minimum of six points on their disciplinary record.

David also began assigning Plaintiff to particular machines which, for safety reasons, required his undivided attention for extended periods of time. This prevented him from having short breaks throughout the day to visit Johnson's office and complain about Hensley and David's racist conduct.

In early March 2018, David told Plaintiff that he needed to work on an upcoming Sunday. Plaintiff reminded David that he could not work on Sundays and informed him that one of his co-workers was more than willing to work in his place. When David would not accommodate Plaintiff, he raised his concerns directly with Plant Manager Redman. Redman challenged Plaintiff asking him which would pay more, his church work or his job, thus signaling to Plaintiff that if he wanted to keep his job he would need to work on Sunday.

On March 13, 2018, David terminated Plaintiff following his refusal to work on Sunday. He was replaced with David's son, a Caucasian.

Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on March 13, 2018. The EEOC issued Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue on June 27, 2019. Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on September 24, 2019. Plaintiff filed his Verified Amended Complaint on December 13, 2019 bringing eight causes of action: (1) Racial Discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2; (2) Religious Discrimination under Title VII; (3) Retaliation based upon Race under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3; (4) Retaliation based upon Religion under Title VII; (5) Racial Discrimination in Termination of Employment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (6) Retaliation based upon Race in Termination of Employment pursuant to § 1981; (7) WrongfulDischarge based upon Race Discrimination and Retaliation under the North Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act ("NCEEPA"), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-422.22; and (8) Wrongful Discharge based upon Religious Discrimination and Retaliation under NCEEPA.

Defendant moves to strike Exhibit A attached to Plaintiff's Verfied Amended Complaint and to dismiss the first, second, fifth, seventh and eighth causes of action.

II. MOTION TO STRIKE EXHIBIT A

Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow the Court to strike "any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter" from a pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). While generally disfavored, courts have broad discretion in ruling on motions to strike. Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316, 347 (4th Cir. 2001); see also, Brown v. Inst. For Family Centered Servs., Inc., 394 F. Supp. 2d 724, 727 (M.D.N.C. 2005) ("Motions to strike are viewed with disfavor and are granted only for egregious violations. Thus, before a motion to strike will be granted the allegations must be the type envisioned by the rule and prejudicial.") (citations omitted). "The issue before the Court on a Rule 12(f) motion is not whether...