Webster v. Dollar Gen., Inc.

197 F.Supp.3d 692

Matthew WEBSTER, Plaintiff,

v.DOLLAR GENERAL, INC., Bob Miller, Vince Triboletti, John Does 1-20 (hitherto unknown employees or principals of Dollar General, Inc.), Jane Does 1-20 (hitherto unknown employees or principals of Dollar General, Inc.), and ABC Corporations 1-10 (hitherto unknown employees or principals of Dollar General, Inc.), Defendants.

Civil Action No. 13-690 (JBS/KMW)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

Signed July 14, 2016

Randy P. Davenport, Esq., LAW OFFICE OF RANDY P. DAVENPORT, ESQ., The Imperial Building, 1185 Morris Avenue, Suite 205, Union, NJ 07083, Counsel for Plaintiff.

Philip A. Goldstein, Esq., MCGUIREWOODS LLP, 1345 Avenue of the Americas, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10105, Joel S. Allen, Esq., Melissa M. Hensley, Esq., MCGUIREWOODS LLP, 2000 McKinney, Suite 1400, Dallas, TX 75201, Counsel for Defendants.

OPINION

SIMANDLE, Chief Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

In this employment action, Plaintiff Matthew Webster (hereinafter, "Plaintiff"), a practicing Seventh Day Adventist, alleges that Defendants Dollar General, Inc., Bob Miller, and Vince Triboletti (hereinafter, "Defendants" or "Dollar General") violated section 703(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter, "Title VII") and breached the parties' express and implied agreements, by refusing to accommodate his religious obligations in connection with his proposed role as the Store Manager for the Sicklerville, New Jersey Dollar General.¹ Plaintiff takes issue, in particular, with Defendants' refusal to excuse him from working on the Saturday Sabbath of Seventh Day Adventists, i.e., from sundown on Fridays to sundown on Saturdays.

Following pretrial discovery and post-discovery issues,² Defendants now move for summary judgment on the ground that the undisputed factual record demonstrates, as a matter of law, that they had no obligation to accommodate Plaintiff's religious observances, because doing so would have imposed, in their view, an undue burden on the operations of the Sicklerville store. (See generally Defs.' Br. at 6-27; Defs.' Reply at 3-14.) More specifically, Defendants point to a laundry-list of potential ramifications, ranging from the deprivation of proper leadership and the improper delegation of managerial tasks, to inadequately stocked shelves and lower employee morale.³ (See generally id.) Turning then to the contractual aspects of this litigation, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims find no footing in any written employment contract (mostly, because no such contract exists), and rely instead only on his completed employment application. (See generally Defs.' Br. at 27-30; Defs.' Reply at 14-15.) As a result, Defendants submit that Plaintiff's contractual claims lack any basis in the undisputed evidence.⁴ (See generally id.)

Plaintiff argues, by contrast, that the factual record dispels any definitive claim of undue burden, because the so-called "Saturday Duties" (that Plaintiff would have missed due to his religious observances) were delegable, and could have been referred to another employee without impacting overall operations. (See Pl.'s Opp'n at 4-13.) In support of this position, Plaintiff turns to the testimony of Dollar General's District Manager, Robert Miller, who "destroyed the notion," at least in Plaintiff's view, that the successful operation of a Dollar General location requires the Store Manager to work on Saturdays. (Id. at 5-13.) Indeed, Plaintiff claims that the testimony of Mr. Miller, by itself, creates a genuine dispute on the issue of undue burden. (Id. at 13.) Turning then to his contractual claims, Plaintiff argues that the "terms" of his employment application, particularly his expressed unavailability to work on Saturdays, governed the parties' employer-employee relationship. (Id. at 14-16.) From that premise, Plaintiff claims that Defendants' denial of an accommodation "clearly" amounts to a breach of the parties' express and implied agreements. (Id.)

In resolving the pending motion, the Court must confront two interconnected inquiries. First, the Court must consider whether the undisputed factual record demonstrates only one conclusion on the issue of undue burden. Second, and relatedly, the Court must address whether Plaintiff's employment application suffices, as a matter of law, to create a factual basis for Plaintiff's contractual claims.

For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion for summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part, and their motion to strike will be granted in part and denied in part.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND⁵

A. Dollar General, Generally

Dollar General, a retailer of basic "consumable goods, seasonal items, home products, and apparel," runs its various New Jersey locations through a team comprised of a Store Manager (hereinafter, an "SM"), an Assistant Store Manager (hereinafter, an "ASM"), one or more Lead Sales Associates (hereinafter, an "LSA"), and multiple Sales Associates. (Defs.' SMF at ¶¶ 1-4; Pl.'s RSMF at ¶¶ 1-4.) As relevant here, the SMs serve as the "highest supervisory" employee in any location, directly manage the entire retail store (including its employees), and implement store processes (as necessary). (Defs.' SMF at ¶¶ 3, 6; Pl.'s RSMF at ¶¶ 3, 6.)

In connection with these operations, each Dollar General location works "on a seven-day" cycle "that begins on ‘Truck Day,’ " or the day of the week on which "the truck delivers merchandise to the store."⁶ (Defs.' SMF at ¶ 10; Pl.'s RSMF at ¶ 10.) The day of and after the delivery (i.e., "Truck Day" and "T+1"), in turn, become "important and busy" days for store operations, because the store staff must organize and stage the truck deliveries, and perform an array of stocking duties.⁷ (Defs.' SMF at ¶¶ 14, 16-17; Pl.'s RSMF at ¶¶ 14, 16-17.) Given the importance of these tasks, and SM's overarching responsibility for operations, Dollar General " ‘prefer[s]’ " that SMs handle freight deliveries, and " ‘recommend[s]’ " that they be present on "T+1" days to oversee shelving, among other end-of-week tasks.⁸ (Pl.'s Supp. SMF at ¶ 70; see also Miller Dep. at 58:5-59:22; Defs.' SMF at ¶¶ 8-9 (explaining the "T+1" day responsibilities of the SM, all while acknowledging the delegable nature of those tasks, if necessary, to the ASMS); Defs.' Supp. SMF at ¶¶ 1-20 (reiterating the same general notion, coupled with some additional detail on the potential negative ramifications of the delegation).)

B. Plaintiff's Employment Application and Subsequent Employment

On July 29, 2010, Plaintiff completed an employment application during a Dollar General Job Fair, in which he identified his work availability as from 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Sundays through Thursdays, 6:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Fridays, and 6:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. on Saturdays.⁹ (Pl.'s Supp. SMF at ¶¶ 8-9; Defs.' RSMF at ¶¶ 8-9.) Following interviews with Dollar General District Manager Robert Miller, Store Manager Dora Albert, and Regional Manager Tom Balchak, on August 12, 2010, Mr. Miller contacted Plaintiff to offer him the Store Manager position for the then-unbuilt Sicklerville, New Jersey location. (Defs.' SMF at ¶¶ 26, 30; Pl.'s RSMF at ¶¶ 26, 30; Pl.'s Supp. SMF at ¶¶ 10, 12-15; Defs.' RSMF at ¶¶ 10, 12-15.) During the construction of the new location, however, Plaintiff joined Dollar General as a "Store Manager Candidate" (hereinafter, an "SMC"), a temporary position during which Plaintiff would "train and gain experience" in another location, until being "promoted to Store Manager and placed in his own store."¹⁰ (Defs.' SMF at ¶¶ 19-20, 22; Pl.'s RSMF at ¶¶ 19-20, 22.)

C. Plaintiff's Training and Request for Accommodation

More specifically, in September of 2010, Plaintiff trained as an SMC at the Cherry Hill, New Jersey Dollar General under the supervision of SM Dora Albert. (Defs.' SMF at ¶ 31; Pl.'s RSMF at ¶ 31; Pl.'s Supp. SMF at ¶¶ 18-20; Defs.' RSMF at ¶¶ 18-20.) During that two-week period, Plaintiff worked the same schedule as Ms. Albert, including both Saturdays, and received a general (albeit lengthy) orientation into the requirements of the SM position. (See Defs.' SMF at ¶¶ 31-32; Pl.'s RSMF at ¶¶31-32; Pl.'s Supp. SMF at ¶¶ 20, 23; Defs.' RSMF at ¶¶ 20, 23.)

At the conclusion of his training at the Cherry Hill store, however, Plaintiff explained to Ms. Albert that his beliefs as a Seventh Day Adventist left him "not available to work from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday."¹¹ (Defs.' SMF at ¶ 33; see also Pl.'s RSMF at ¶ 33; Pl.'s Supp. SMF at ¶¶ 22, 24; Defs.' RSMF at ¶¶ 22.) Ms. Albert then reported Plaintiff's "request for time off for religious observation" to Mr. Miller, who believed Plaintiff's "scheduling restrictions" on Saturdays constituted "an isolated event," rather than "an ongoing need." (Defs.' SMF at ¶¶ 34-35; see also Pl.'s RSMF at ¶¶ 34-35; Pl.'s Supp. SMF at ¶¶ 26, 28; Defs.' RSMF at ¶¶ 26, 28.) Nevertheless, in October 2010, Mr. Miller transferred Plaintiff to the Dollar General store in Berlin, New Jersey, to continue his SMC training under the direction of Store Manager Vincent Triboletti (see Defs.' SMF at ¶ 37; Pl.'s RSMF at ¶ 37; Pl.'s Supp. SMF at ¶ 33; Defs.' RSMF at ¶ 33), and instructed Plaintiff to contact Mr. Triboletti to arrange the logistics. (See Pl.'s Supp. SMF at ¶ 36; Defs.' RSMF at ¶ 36.)

When Plaintiff spoke with Mr. Triboletti, he informed him (as he did with Ms. Albert) that he could not work on any Saturday due to his observation of Saturday Sabbath. (See Defs.' SMF at ¶ 38; Pl.'s RSMF at ¶ 38; Pl.'s Supp. SMF at ¶ 37; Defs.' RSMF at ¶ 37.) Mr. Triboletti then relayed Plaintiff's scheduling limitations to Mr. Miller, who instructed Plaintiff (at the request of Human Resources) to draft a written statement "detailing his request for a religious accommodation." (Defs.' SMF at ¶¶ 39-40; Pl.'s RSMF at ¶¶ 39-40; Pl.'s Supp. SMF at ¶¶ 41-42; Defs.' RSMF at ¶¶ 41-42.) Plaintiff, in turn, wrote the following explanation and returned it to Mr. Miller:

I

...