Simmons v. Triton Elevator, LLC

557 F.Supp.3d 767

Rico SIMMONS, Plaintiff,

v.TRITON ELEVATOR, LLC, and Derald Armstrong, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-CV-1206-B

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.

Signed August 30, 2021

Michael E. Coles, The Coles Firm PC, Elizabeth Aten Lamberson, The Lamberson Law Firm PC, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.

Reagan R. Herod, The Gibson Law Group PC, Irving, TX, David R. Gibson, The Gibson Law Group, Dallas, TX, for Defendant Triton Elevator, LLC.

Reagan R. Herod, The Gibson Law Group PC, Irving, TX, David R. Gibson, Kila Lynn Bobier, The Gibson Law Group, Dallas, TX, for Defendant Derald Armstrong.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JANE J. BOYLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendants Triton Elevator, LLC ("Triton") and Derald Armstrong ("Armstrong")’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 56). For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion.

I.BACKGROUND¹

A. Factual Background²

This is an employment discrimination action by Plaintiff Rico Simmons, a Black man who formerly worked for Triton. Doc. 57, Defs.’ Br., 1; Doc. 59, Pl.’s Resp., 5. Triton is an elevator manufacturer service and repair company where Armstrong serves as Chief Operating Officer. Doc. 60, Pl.’s App., 8. In August 2018, Triton hired Plaintiff as an engineer. Id. at 11, 118. Plaintiff's direct supervisor was Rick David. Id. at 142. According to David, Plaintiff performed satisfactory work at Triton, was amenable to learning new techniques, and received a promised raise three months into his employment due to his satisfactory performance. Id. Further, Plaintiff never received any formal discipline or warning while employed with Triton. Id. at 142–43.

Despite his satisfactory work performance, Plaintiff's employment with Triton was far from smooth sailing. Plaintiff claims that while employed at Triton, he was subjected to several "racist and offensive" comments. Doc. 59, Pl.’s Resp., 5. Further, he claims he was fired by Armstrong due to his complaints about these comments. Doc. 39, Second Am. Compl., ¶ 30. The Court details Plaintiff's allegations of racially offensive comments at Triton, followed by the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff's termination, below.

1. Racially Offensive Comments

To start, Plaintiff explains that while in his own office, he overheard Danny Duncan—Armstrong's former brother-in-law and a Director at Triton—using the terms "n*****" and "boy" in a conversation with David. Doc. 58, Defs.’ App., 140, 144; Doc. 60, Pl.’s App., 11, 117. Then, Duncan and David began talking about Plaintiff without "using these terms out loud anymore[.]" Doc. 58, Defs.’ App., 140. Duncan denies using the terms. Id. at 208–09.³

Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that prior to that conversation between Duncan and David, David once used the term "monkey" to refer to a Black employee. Doc. 59, Pl.’s Resp., 12. David acknowledges that he did refer to an individual as a "monkey" but denies that he was referring to a person of color. Doc. 60, Pl.’s App., 143. Plaintiff explains that until this "monkey" comment, Plaintiff never had an issue with David—David was "very respectful," so the "monkey" comment "surprised" Plaintiff. Doc. 58, Defs.’ App., 130. Plaintiff surreptitiously recorded a conversation between he and David in which they discuss this use of the term "monkey." See Doc. 60, Pl.’s App., 52. In the conversation, Plaintiff confronted David on calling a "Black man ... a monkey[.]" Id. at 56. David responded that he "wasn't referring to anybody in particular" and that he meant a "grease monkey." Id. Plaintiff then explained how use of terms like "monkey" and "brother" offend him. Id. As the conversation progressed, David apologized to Plaintiff, stated that he respects Plaintiff, and indicated that he did not want Plaintiff to feel uncomfortable. See id. at 69, 76. As Plaintiff acknowledges, David also asked Plaintiff to "help [him] to learn how not to be a racist person." Doc. 58, Defs.’ App., 110.

Further, Plaintiff claims that David once referred to David's own son as a "wigger" and "ghetto" in a conversation with Plaintiff. Id. at 105; Doc. 60, Pl.’s App., 58. The latter reference occurred during the recorded conversation mentioned above. David was explaining how his son speaks differently than David or Plaintiff—"it's almost ghetto the way he speaks." Doc. 60, Pl.’s App., 58. When Plaintiff stated that the term "ghetto" was "racist in itself," David acknowledged that "it is a very stereotypical thing to say, but it defines how he is." Id. at 58–59. David and Plaintiff then proceeded to discuss their differing viewpoints on the connotation of the term "ghetto." See id. at 59–63. However, David does not recall calling his son a "wigger." Id. at 144.

Next, Plaintiff alleges that after initially confronting David on use of the term "monkey," employees began to refer to the "Brother printer" in the office—a printer manufactured by a company called "Brother"—"with an inflection or emphasis on the word ‘Brother’ that led [Plaintiff] to conclude they were mocking him." Doc. 59, Pl.’s Resp., 6 (citation omitted); see Doc. 60, Pl.’s App., 144. Plaintiff mentioned this issue in his recorded conversation with David, and David apologized and stated he did not mean to offend Plaintiff. Doc. 60, Pl.’s App., 56.

Plaintiff also alleges that various Triton employees, including Duncan and Kris Hunt (VP of Operations and "informally in charge of human resources"), referred to him as "boy" or "homeboy[.]" Doc. 59, Pl.’s Resp., 5, 12; see, e.g. , Doc. 58, Defs.’ App., 97, 115; Doc. 60, Pl.’s App., 48. For instance, Plaintiff claims Duncan once stated to Plaintiff: "Hey homeboy, you can't be chilling in the hallway. You scared me boy." Doc. 60, Pl.’s App., 48. In his deposition, David also testified that Plaintiff was offended when a supervisor stated, "I'll get this to my boy Jake to get it installed." Id. at 145. According to David, Plaintiff then told those present, "That's a racial term and you shouldn't be saying that," despite that both Jake and the man to whom the supervisor was speaking were White. Id.

Further, Plaintiff states that Don Criswell (President and CEO of Triton), Duncan, and Hunt passed by Plaintiff's office when the office lacked a working light. Id. at 9, 48. According to Plaintiff, the men stated the office was "really black," and Hunt stated he could only see Plaintiff's teeth. Id. at 48. Plaintiff also recounts that Hunt "made it a point to discuss skits from the Dave Chapelle show, in particular the skits in which the actors frequently used the word ‘n*****.’ " Id.

Finally, Plaintiff recalls two incidents with a secretary: once, she stated Plaintiff's hair made him look as if he was "from the hood" and "[s]cary"; another time, she "confided to [Plaintiff] in a shameful tone that her grandmother had been African American." Id. at 48–49. With respect to the second encounter, Plaintiff "understood that the secretary was trying to soften her statements about [Plaintiff's] hair." Id. at 49.

Plaintiff claims that his complaints to leadership at Triton about the various remarks "fell on deaf ears." Doc. 59, Pl.’s Resp., 7.

First, Plaintiff states he complained to Armstrong on multiple occasions. Doc. 60, Pl.’s App., 49. He explains that when he complained about racist comments to Armstrong in January 2019, Armstrong brushed off his complaints and, at some point, responded that he "had previously dated a black woman but had never told anyone about it," thereby suggesting this was a secret. Id. ; see Doc. 58, Defs.’ App., 98–99 (describing Plaintiff's complaint to Armstrong); id. at 138–39 (explaining he talked to Armstrong in January 2019). Armstrong claims Plaintiff misconstrued this statement: Armstrong was actually informing Plaintiff he had provided money to an "African-American woman girlfriend" and did not want others to know because this was "company money." Doc. 60, Pl.’s App., 15. Second, Plaintiff expressed his frustration to David in the recorded conversation summarized above. Third, Plaintiff claims he "complained to Mr. Hunt" about the "monkey" comment and the "Brother" printer terminology. Id. at 49.

Based on Plaintiff's complaints, Criswell discussed the use of the term "the ‘brother’ printer" and David's "monkey" comment with David. Id. at 87. Criswell and David determined that David would apologize for using both terms, and Criswell "took no further action[.]" Id.

On his own accord, Plaintiff attempted to educate the office by distributing "Jim Crow Etiquette" flyers. Id. at 39; Doc. 58, Defs.’ App., 102. Further, in light of the "racial comments" by David and "multiple stereotypical comments and questions," Plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on February 7, 2019. Doc. 58, Defs.’ App., 228.

2. Plaintiff's Termination

About three weeks after Plaintiff filed his EEOC charge, Armstrong fired Plaintiff. See id. at 142, 232. The parties’ accounts of Plaintiff's termination vary. The Court begins with Plaintiff's versions and then summarizes the recollections of Armstrong, David, and Duncan.

a. Plaintiff's Accounts

In his deposition, Plaintiff claims that he overheard a conversation between David and Duncan. Id. at 140. According to Plaintiff, David and Duncan were using "racial terms" including "n*****" and "boy[.]" Id. Upon overhearing them, Plaintiff entered the doorway, and Duncan and David were "referring to [Plaintiff] now, not using [the] terms out loud anymore[.]" Id. Plaintiff then told Duncan that he can talk to Plaintiff directly. Id. at 140–41. Plaintiff then "asked him again" and Duncan became "loud" and said, "f*** you, I don't have to tell you anything[.]" Id. at 141. Plaintiff and Duncan continued to argue, and Armstrong walked in the room. Id. Armstrong asked what was happening, and Plaintiff explained that he wanted Duncan to "treat [him] like a man and not be disrespectful[.]" Id. at 142. Armstrong...