Reid v. Dalco Nonwovens, LLC

154 F.Supp.3d 273

Jeremy R. Reid, Plaintiff,

v.Dalco Nonwovens, LLC; Jason Logan; and Ralph Sherman, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-105-RLV-DCK

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division .

Signed January 4, 2016

William Edward Morgan, Morgan Law, PLLC, Hickory, NC, for Plaintiff.

Katie Weaver Hartzog, Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP, Paul Hutto Derrick, Derrick Law Firm, Raleigh, NC, Michael Paul Thomas, Patrick, Harper & Dixon, LLP, Hickory, NC, Shannon Sumerell Spainhour, Davis Hartman Wright PLLC, Asheville, NC, for Defendants.

ORDER

Richard L. Voorhees, United States District Judge

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Defendant Dalco Nonwovens, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). [Doc. No. 41]. After a thorough examination of the record, the parties' briefs, and applicable law, the Court enters the following Order on the Defendant's Motion for the reasons discussed more thoroughly below.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

1. Contextual Background

Dalco is a manufacturing company located in Conover, North Carolina. A primary facet of its business is to manufacture an assortment of base fabrics from shredded raw fibrous materials. Once created, Dalco's base fabrics are commonly used in connection with a wide-variety of consumer and industrial applications and products.

To accomplish its business objectives, Dalco's factory has set-up three automated “lines”—Line One, Line Two, and Line Three—to process the raw fiber materials into usable fabrics. See, e.g. , [Doc. No. 47] at pp. 21-22, 25-26 (Logan Depo.). The way each line works is as follows: a “hopper operator” brings the raw material to the line via a forklift; each bale of raw material is held together by several straps, which must then be removed by the hopper operator prior to processing; once the straps are removed, the bale of raw material is “fed” by the operator into the line machine on a conveyor belt; the conveyor then transports the material to a feeding area (i.e., the hopper) where it is processed by a “willow” (a rotating wheel with teeth), which breaks up and grinds the raw fibers; the ground fibers are then carried out the end of the machine in a crude, yet processed form; at that point, the machine presses and rolls the processed fiber so it can be utilized for commercial purposes. See [Doc. No. 49] at pp. 46-47 (Greenwood Depo.); [Doc. No. 47] at pp. 19, 21-22 (Logan Depo.); [Doc. No. 54] at pp. 91-104 (Plaintiff Depo.). If a hopper runs out of fiber material, an alarm sounds—indicating that more fiber needs to be added to prevent damaging the machine. See [Doc. No. 54] at pp. 104-105 (Plaintiff Depo.). Dalco runs two twelve (12) hour line shifts each day—a day shift and a night shift—in order to keep the hoppers running and to meet its customers' needs. [Doc. No. 52] at p. 7 (Ashworth Depo.).

Each line (and, correspondingly, each shift) is typically managed by a team leader or line operator, a “winder operator,” and a hopper operator. [Doc. No. 47] at pp. 10-11, 13 (Logan Depo.). A shift supervisor oversees each of the lines during his shift; however, during a shift supervisor's absence, a particular line's team leader assumes a limited supervisory role over his line, such as “direct[ing] and mak[ing] assignments to other employees on the line” and “direct[ing] how particular work is ... performed.” Id. ; [Doc. No. 41-5] at p. 1 (¶ 3) (Sigmon Decl.). A team leader is primarily responsible for keeping his line running smoothly and making sure other line workers are doing their assigned jobs. [Doc. No. 41-5] at p. 1 (¶ 3) (Sigmon Decl.); [Doc. No. 47] at pp. 17-18 (Logan Depo.). As part of the manufacturing process, a hopper operator must keep his area clean by gathering and dumping the removed bale straps and bale packaging into a specified baler for recycling. See [Doc. No. 54] at p. 95 (Plaintiff Depo.); [Doc. No. 52] at pp. 42-43 (Ashworth Depo.). The hopper operator must also take care not to allow any bale packaging or bale straps to fall into the hopper or otherwise enter the machine; else, significant and costly damage to the machine could result. See, e.g. , [Doc. No. 54] at p. 93 (Plaintiff Depo.); [Doc. No. 52] at p. 64 (Ashworth Depo.); [Doc. No. 47] at p. 24 (Logan Depo.).

Plaintiff, an African-American male, began working as a night shift hopper operator at Dalco on July 16, 2012. [Doc. No. 27] at p. 2 (¶ 13) (Second Amend. Compl.); [Doc. No. 30] at p. 2 (¶ 13) (Dalco's Answer to Second Amend. Compl.); [Doc. No. 54] at pp. 43, 80-83 (Plaintiff Depo.). As a hopper operator, Plaintiff had the following relevant and essential job duties: unloading incoming raw materials; servicing needle boards; operating a forklift; keeping hoppers loaded, level, and consistent with specified fiber material; monitoring hoppers to ensure they operate properly and remain clean; performing “[o]ther duties as needed;” and “work[ing] effectively in a team environment.” [Doc. No. 54] at pp. 80-83 (Plaintiff Depo.); [Doc. No. 54-1] at Ex. 2 (Plaintiff Depo.).

At the time of his hire, Plaintiff was primarily obligated to perform those assigned duties with respect to Line One. [Doc. No. 54-1] at Ex. 2 (Plaintiff Depo.). However, Plaintiff was also obligated to “watch” other lines “while [a line's] operator [was] away” by performing “the same” hopper duties, as required, with respect to the additional line.¹ Id. Occasionally, when Dalco is short-staffed during a shift, an on-duty hopper operator might be required to assume the responsibilities of an absent colleague on a different line, as circumstances require. See, e.g. , [Doc. No. 47] at pp. 25-26 (Logan Depo.); [Doc. No. 52] at p. 65 (Ashworth Depo.); [Doc. No. 54] at pp. 82-83 (Plaintiff Depo.); accord [Doc. No. 41-5] at p. 2 (¶ 6) (Sigmon Decl.). However, this is a rare occurrence and efforts are made to call-in additional help prior to having an on-duty hopper operator assume such additional duties. See [Doc. No. 52] at pp. 44, 65 (Ashworth Depo.); [Doc. No. 52] at Ex. 4 (Ashworth Depo.).

While at Dalco, Plaintiff was assisted by Adam Sigmon (“Sigmon”), a white male and the night shift team leader on Line One. [Doc. No. 54] at p. 37 (Plaintiff Depo.); [Doc. No. 41-5] at p. 1 (¶ 2) (Sigmon Decl.). Jason Logan, an African-American male, was Plaintiff's night shift supervisor. [Doc. No. 54] at pp. 34, 36-37 (Plaintiff Depo.); [Doc. No. 47] at p. 6 (Logan Depo.). Plaintiff and Sigmon reported to Logan. [Doc. No. 41-5] at p. 1 (¶ 3) (Sigmon Decl.); accord [Doc. No. 47] at pp. 10-11, 13 (Logan Depo.). Logan reported to Scott Greenwood, Dalco's plant manager, as well as Mark and Joy Evans, Dalco's owners and officers. See [Doc. No. 47] at pp. 8-9 (Logan Depo.); [Doc. No. 49] at p. 7 (Greenwood Depo.); accord [Doc. No. 48] at p. 5 (M. Evans Depo.); [Doc. No. 50] at p. 5 (J. Evans Depo.). Greenwood and the Evanses are the only persons capable of terminating Dalco employees. See [Doc. No. 49] at pp. 11-12 (Greenwood Depo.); [Doc. No. 48] at pp. 7-8 (M. Evans Depo.); [Doc. No. 50] at pp. 7-8 (J. Evans Depo.); accord [Doc. No. 47] at p. 15 (Logan Depo.) (testifying he could only recommend that workers be terminated); [Doc. No. 41-5] at p. 1 (¶ 3) (Sigmon Decl.) (testifying he has no authority to hire, fire, or discipline Dalco employees); [Doc. No. 54] at p. 233 (Plaintiff Depo.) (testifying that, to his knowledge, neither Sherman nor Sigmon had the authority to fire him from Dalco). Logan, however, as shift supervisor, could commence disciplinary action (such as “write ups”) against employees working under his authority. [Doc. No. 47] at pp. 16-17 (Logan Depo.).

During Plaintiff's employment, Dalco had in place an anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policy (the “Anti-Discrimination Policy” or “Policy”). See [Doc. No. 54-1] at Exs. 4, 7 (Exhibits to Plaintiff's Depo.). Dalco's Anti-Discrimination Policy provides, in pertinent part, that harassment of any kind, but specifically harassment on the basis of race, is prohibited. Id. It further provides that if an employee “feels [the] policy has been violated,” then such employee should immediately register either a verbal or written complaint with a supervisor, manager, or either of the Evanses. Id. The Policy also states that no retaliation will result against any employee who reports a complaint in good faith. Id. Plaintiff testified that he read and understood the Policy at the time of his hire. See [Doc. No. 54] at pp. 89-90 (Plaintiff Depo.); [Doc. No. 54-1] at Exs. 3, 4 (Exhibits to Plaintiff's Depo.).

2. Encounters with Logan

Plaintiff tried to avoid interactions with Logan by doing his job and staying out of Logan's way. [Doc. No. 54] at pp. 127-28, 160 (Plaintiff Depo.). Plaintiff testified that, during his first day at Dalco, Logan verbally accosted him. Id. at p. 128 (Plaintiff Depo.). As time progressed, Logan physically accosted Plaintiff as well. Specifically, Plaintiff testified that Logan hit him on the head, “cut him off” as he was walking, and slapped his hand while he was operating a machine sometime during late-October 2012. [Doc. No. 54] at pp. 129, 131, 158-59, 202, 206-207 (Plaintiff Depo.). Logan also “bounced” Plaintiff twice as he was walking into the plant. Id. at 130-31 (Plaintiff Depo.). Plaintiff has not testified to any specific dates of physical abuse that precede October 2012. Logan also spoke disrespectfully of Plaintiff to other employees, and Plaintiff claims that he was the only employee of whom Logan spoke ill. Id. at pp. 134-35 (Plaintiff Depo.). However, Plaintiff did not testify as to the specific contents or contexts of Logan's conversations. Plaintiff further testified that Logan once disciplined him (i.e., wrote him up) for failing to allow the willow to stop spinning on Line One before attempting to clean out the hopper (a failure Plaintiff admits could have caused him serious harm). See id. at pp. 105-106, 136-37 (Plaintiff Depo.).

On October 24, 2012, Plaintiff sent Logan a text...