Shokri v. Boeing Co.

311 F.Supp.3d 1204

Behrouz SHOKRI, Plaintiff,

v.The BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant.

Case No. C16–1132 RSM

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

Signed April 25, 2018

Jordan A. Taren, Richard E. Goldsworthy, Scott Crispin Greco Blankenship, The Blankenship Law Firm, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff.

Lincoln O. Bisbee, Pro Hac Vice, Matthew J. Sharbaugh, Pro Hac Vice, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Washington, DC, Clifford D. Sethness, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Los Angeles, CA, Laurence A. Shapero, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, Seattle, WA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims. Dkt. # 96. Plaintiff has alleged, under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (" § 1981") and the Washington Law against Discrimination ("WLAD"), that Defendant discriminated and retaliated against him on account of his race and national origin. Dkt. # 1 ¶ 2. Defendant argues that Plaintiff's evidence cannot support a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation and, in any event, cannot show that Defendant did not have legitimate business reasons for its actions or that Defendant's reasons were merely a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. Dkt. # 96 at 2–3. Plaintiff argues that he has "provided substantial evidence in support of his case and has disputed the material facts." Dkt. # 122–1 at 1.¹ While Plaintiff has requested oral argument, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary to its resolution of Defendant's motion. Having considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Behrouz Shokri is originally from Iran and is of Persian and Middle Eastern race. Dkt. # 122–2 at ¶ 3. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, The Boeing Company, from February, 1986, until he was laid off as a part of a reduction in force in April, 2015. Dkt. # 1 at ¶¶ 11, 18. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a Systems and Data Analyst 4 (a "BAMA–4") working within Defendant's "ENOVIA" development team, a part of its IT group. Dkt. # 122–2 at ¶¶ 10–12; Dkt. # 99 at ¶¶ 2–3

A. Following Management Changes, Mr. Garrity Becomes Plaintiff's New Manager

During 2014, Defendant reorganized its IT group, resulting in several management changes for Plaintiff. Dkt. # 99 at ¶¶ 4–5. Plaintiff began the year under the management of Mr. McClees who had previously managed Plaintiff for several years and who continued to manage Plaintiff and the ENOVIA team until April, 2014. Id. Management of the team was then transferred to Mr. Nelson from April to August because Defendant initially intended to maintain the ENOVIA team in Washington. Id. Defendant later decided to move its ENOVIA team to South Carolina and placed the team under the management of Mr. Garrity, who was located in South Carolina. Id. Mr. Garrity was Plaintiff's manager from August until his termination on April 24, 2015. Id.

Plaintiff did not believe that his new manager was qualified or effective as Mr. Garrity had "only been with [Defendant] for approximately two years [and] ... had little to no IT experience, computer science experience, or software development experience." Dkt. # 122–2 at ¶ 21. Further, Plaintiff experienced a lack of direct communication with Mr. Garrity and Mr. Garrity ceased "weekly face to face status meetings." Id. at ¶ 22.

To foster communication, Plaintiff took the initiative to schedule a face to face meeting with Mr. Garrity when he was in Washington on October 30, 2014. Id. at ¶¶ 23–24. During the meeting Plaintiff discussed the status of his projects, his concerns with the performance of a contractor, and his opinion that "continuing the weekly meetings would be helpful for the team and for [Mr. Garrity]." Id. at ¶¶ 24–26. During the course of the meeting, Plaintiff observed "Mr. Garrity [become] visibly frustrated and hostile" and Mr. Garrity "angrily said to [Plaintiff] in a very aggressive tone: ‘Where are you from?’ and ‘What is your nationality?’ " Id. at ¶ 27. Plaintiff "was offended by the comment" as he felt "[i]t was not asked as any kind of pleasantry or curiosity." Id. at ¶ 28. In response, Plaintiff told Mr. Garrity: "This has nothing to do with this conversation. I'm Iranian, and why you're [sic] asking about my nationality?" Dkt. # 97–1 at 17–18. Mr. Garrity responded: "What else do you have to complain about?" Id. After Plaintiff responded that he had nothing else, Mr. Garrity "stormed out of the conference room, abruptly terminating the meeting." Dkt. # 122–2 at ¶¶ 30–31.

B. Plaintiff's 2014 Performance Management Review

Within Defendant's IT group, managers complete yearly Performance Management Reviews ("PMs") for their hourly employees based on their individual performance. Dkt. # 99 at ¶¶ 6, 8. Managers assign values on a variety of metrics within the areas of "Business Goals and Objectives" ("B & Os") and "Performance Values" ("PVs") using the following scale: "1 Does Not Meet," "2 Met Some Expectations," "3 Met Expectations," "4 Exceeds Expectations," and "5 Far Exceeds Expectations.." Id. at ¶ 6. Even though the PMs consider individual performance, there was a push, in mid-to-late 2014, for managers to force differentiation and have tough conversations in the review process by more closely applying rating criteria and utilizing the full rating scale. Dkt. # 97–4 at 3–4; Dkt. # 98 at ¶ 5; Dkt. # 99 at ¶ 7.

Central to his claims, Plaintiff alleges that under Mr. Garrity he received "some of the worst and most unfair Performance Management and Job–Related Competencies evaluations he had received in his 29 years with [Defendant], despite 2014 being one of the most successful years of his career." Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 16. Mr. Garrity, as Plaintiff's manager at the end of 2014, completed his PM for the year in November, 2014. Dkt. # 122–2 at ¶ 43. Mr. Garrity gave Plaintiff an overall rating of "(3) ‘Met Expectations’ " in the B & Os section and gave Plaintiff a mixture of "3"s and "4"s within the individual metrics of that section. Dkt. # 107–1 at 255–65. In the PVs section, Mr. Garrity gave Plaintiff "3"s on the individual metrics as well as an overall rating of "(3) ‘Met Expectations.’ " Id. Mr. Garrity explained in the 2014 PM that Plaintiff's "transition from ‘exceeds’ to ‘mets’ [sic] was not due to a decline in his performance, but due to [Mr. Garrity] working to provide more accurate feedback and metrics for the requirements that [Plaintiff] has in his position and level." Dkt. # 107–1 at 260.

Mr. Garrity's ratings were a departure from Plaintiff's 2013 PM, completed by Mr. McClees, and his mid-year 2014 PM, completed by Mr. Nelson, each of which rated Plaintiff "(4) ‘Exceeds Expectations’ " in both the B & Os and PVs. Dkt. # 107–1 at 235–53. Further, the lower ranking was despite Plaintiff having successfully completed several projects in 2014, pleasing his internal customers and saving Defendant over 10 million dollars. Dkt. # 122–1 at 2–3; Dkt. # 122–2 at ¶¶ 38–40. Mr. Garrity knew of at least one of these successful projects before rating Plaintiff and considered those accomplishments in Plaintiff's 2014 PM ratings, rating him as exceeding expectations in relevant subcategories. Dkt. # 109; Dkt. # 98 at ¶ 16. While significant, the accomplishments were not unexpected for an employee of Plaintiff's level. Dkt. # 98 at ¶ 15; Dkt. # 99 at ¶ 19.

On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff began an alternative dispute resolution process ("ADR") "challenging the fairness, process, and scoring" of his 2014 PM ratings. Dkt. # 122–2 at ¶¶ 62–63. Specifically, Plaintiff argued that the PM rating did not "fairly reflect my actual performance, contributions, and accomplishments made during the year." Dkt. # 97–7 at 2. During a January 5, 2015 phone call, Mr. Garrity ordered Plaintiff to sign his 2014 PM rating and Plaintiff told Mr. Garrity that "the way you graded me is discriminatory and biased, and I have to—I'm challenging you, and taking this to ADR." Dkt. # 122–2 at ¶ 71–73. On the same date, Plaintiff signed his 2014 PM ratings and included a narrative disagreeing with the ratings but not indicating that he believed the review was discriminatory, motivated by racial animus, or retaliatory. Dkt. # 107–1 at 263–65.

The ADR process was supposed to have three steps. Plaintiff's ADR appeal proceeded through the first two steps, but Mr. Garrity—Defendant's representative—did not agree to change Plaintiff's ratings. Dkt. # 107–3 at 38; Dkt. # 107–1 at 53–61. The ADR process was terminated prior to the final step—a more involved Panel Review to determine whether the ratings were in line with Defendant's policies. Dkt. # 107–1 at 56–59. Scheduling difficulties did not allow the Panel Review to occur before Plaintiff's employment was terminated. Id.

C. Defendant's 2015 Reduction in Force and Termination of Plaintiff's Employment

In early 2015, Defendant's IT group commenced a reduction in force ("RIF") in Puget Sound, including a RIF for employees within Plaintiff's job classification—BAMA–4. Dkt. # 99 at ¶ 9. The IT group had gone through several reductions in force in the preceding years, leaving a pool of talented employees. Id. For its 2015 RIF, Defendant followed a set process. Id. at ¶ 10; Dkt. # 99–1. A "Skill Captain" was first designated for BAMA–4s and the Skill Captain worked with managers of BAMA–4s to identify agreed upon job competencies. Dkt. # 99 at ¶ 11. The Skill Captain and managers then assigned the job competencies weighted values to comprise 60% of the RIF assessment score and the 2014 PM scores made up the other 40% of the assessment score (20% B & Os, 20% PVs). Id. Managers rated their individual BAMA–4s on the agreed job competencies, using a scale of 1 (Entry Level) to 5 (Expert). Id. at ¶ 12. After rating their employees,...