Wood v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co.

1

WAYLON WOOD v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO

Civil Action No. 17-1630

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division

October 3, 2024

HORNSBY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

MEMORANDUM RULING

S MAURICE HICKS, JR., JUDGE.

Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Record Document 38) filed by Defendant, The Kansas City Railway Company (“KCSR”). Plaintiff, Waylon Wood (“Wood”), has sued KCSR for alleged discrimination, retaliation, and interference against him based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”). KCSR seeks summary judgment dismissing all of Wood's claims. Wood filed an opposition to the motion. See Record Document 51. KCSR replied. See Record Document 52. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and all of Wood's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This suit arises out of an employment relationship between Wood and KCSR. Wood has been continuously employed by KCSR since April 18, 2011, when he was hired on as an Assistant Signalman to work on one of KCSR's signal gangs. See Record Document 51-1 at 1. A signal gang's primary responsibility is to install signal equipment in the company's ten-state freight railroad operating area. See id. Signal gangs work system wide, and any gang may be assigned to travel and work anywhere in the system. See id. at 2. Travel is thus required for all signal gang employees, regardless of position. See id. Wood is a current union employee of KCSR but has been on Medical Leave of Absence (“MLOA”) for six years as of the filing of the instant motion. See Record Document 38 at 1.

KCSR states that Wood was held out of service from August 2014 to October 2015 due to an alleged concern related to Wood's use of narcotic pain medication while working in a safety-sensitive position that required work on and around live track equipment. See Record Document 51-2 at 2. Wood states that he was held out of service because he was regarded as disabled due to his use of prescribed medications which he had disclosed to KCSR. See id.

On or about May 27, 2015, Wood filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging, among other things, disability discrimination under the ADA, as he had disclosed his use of the medication throughout the course of his employment with KCSR. See id. at 3. The matter was resolved. See Record Document 38-1 at 2; see also Exhibit 7. Wood returned to work in October 2015 without a lapse in his employment. See Record Document 38-1 at 2. Wood bid on a foreman position in, and as the most senior bidder, he was placed in the foreman position on October 15, 2015. See Record Document 51-1 at 4. Rates of pay for signal-gang foreman and Signalman positions are governed by the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) that KCSR has with the Union. See id. Under the CBA, foremen work in a salaried position and Signalmen work in an hourly position. See id.

Following his return to work, Wood alleges that he experienced retaliatory conduct, including the following: being “cussed out” daily by his supervisor; being disqualified as a crane operator and backhoe operator “for no reason at all;” having his position converted to an hourly rate; being assigned jobs as far as possible from his home; and being demoted from foreman to signalman. See Record Document 51-3 at 3-4.

KCSR asserts that when Wood returned to work in October of 2015, he did not present his certification card to Manager of Signal Engineering, Billy Steiner (“Steiner”). See Record Document 51 -1 at 5. KCSR states that Wood explained to Steiner that he did not have his old card and requested that Steiner sign a new certification card. See id. at 6. Steiner asserts that he was not aware of whether Wood's certifications were current or of the specific equipment Wood had been certified to operate. See id. Wood states that he was always certified to operate the equipment necessary for his job. See id. At that time, KCSR managers were no longer permitted to “sign off” on an employee's equipment qualification; instead, employees had to be certified by formal, periodic training conducted by a training specialist for KCSR. See id. Wood asserts that it was customary for managers to sign off on an employee's equipment qualifications prior to this incident. See id. at 7. Wood did not attend the January training session in Shreveport to obtain any needed equipment certifications, but he did attend a training session in February 2016 and received his equipment certification at the end of training. See id.

KCSR also responds to Wood's allegation that he was demoted from foreman to signalman. In December of 2015, KCSR operated five signal gangs. See id. at 9. KCSR states that by December of 2015, the KCSR signal gangs had fewer work projects due to both the company's completion all federally required positive train control (“PTC”) installations on its rail line and its commitments to certain non-signal related capital requirements. See id. Wood contests that there were fewer work projects. See id. at 9-10.

He states that KCSR allowed a foreman to continue to bid for the fifth gang, which demonstrates the need for a fifth gang. See id. at 10; see also Record Document 51-3 at 4. Due to the reduced number of projects, discussions began among management to restructure the Signal Department and, specifically, to consolidate the signal gangs from five to four and add positions to each of the four remaining gangs to optimize efficiency. See id. at 9-10. The choice was made to consolidate Gang 890's positions into the other four gangs because Gang 890 was already down a signal foreman, meaning that its consolidation would result in overall less disruption to the signal gang workforce. See Id. at 10. The restructuring decision for the Signal Department became final on January 8, 2016, and took effect on January 28, 2016. See id. at 11.

Wood testified that he did not know why KCSR management decided to reduce from five signal gangs down to four. See id. Wood asserts that he has provided evidence that the reduction was not necessary and that it had a retaliatory effect on him as it reduced him from a salary position to an hourly position. See id. at 11-12. KCSR asserts that Wood was not able to hold a foreman position in another gang because he did not have seniority to bump any of the other foreman. See id. at 13. Wood states that although he did not have seniority, he has provided evidence that a reduction was not necessary and that it had a retaliatory effect on him. See id.

Wood worked in a foreman position and received foreman pay from October 15, 2015, through Thursday, January 28, 2016, though he remained in the system as a Foreman through January 31, 2016. See id. at 17. Wood began receiving signalman pay on February 1, 2016. See id. Wood asserts that he did not receive foreman pay for his last week of working as a foreman. See id.

At the time of the following discussed events in 2016, APS Healthcare (“APS”)- which has since changed its name to “KEPRO”-was the third-party vendor that KCSR had contracted with to oversee and administer the management of employee FMLA and MLOA leave processes. See id. In 2016, APS made independent FMLA and MLOA leave determinations and continues to make such determinations at this time, although KCSR is notified contemporaneously of all employee leave requests and determinations and maintains records of the same. See id. at 18. On January 29, 2016, Wood contacted APS via telephone and requested FMLA leave. See id. KCSR states that because Wood had not worked the requisite number of hours in the prior rolling 12-month period, he was not eligible for FMLA leave. See id. Wood states that because of the Settlement Agreement reached for his first EEOC charge, he returned to work without a lapse in service, was given back pay, and was entitled to paid vacation in November 2015, as there had been no lapse in service, per the CBA. See id. at 18-19; see also Record Document 51-2 at 27. Wood was notified that he was not eligible for FMLA on January 29, 2016. See id. at 19.

On January 29, 2016, APS notified Wood that he could apply for a MLOA and was instructed to submit such a request to APS. See id. APS sent the MLOA paperwork to Wood on January 29, 2016, via email, identifying a deadline of February 13, 2016, to complete and submit the medical certification paperwork. See id. Wood was “preliminarily approved” for MLOA on January 29, 2016, pending receipt of medical certification to support his placement on medical leave. See id. at 20. Wood contacted APS on February 4, 2016, via telephone stating that he did not receive the MLOA paperwork, at which point APS again sent the required paperwork via email to Wood and identified an extended submission deadline of February 19, 2016. See id. Wood states that he never received any paperwork in January or February of 2016. See id.

On February 12, 2016, Wood signed a Charge of Discrimination that was received by the EEOC on March 15, 2016. See id. at 20. Wood contests this date and asserts that he filed his “Second Charge” of Discrimination on April 12. See id. On February 24, 2016, Wood was notified by APS via email that his requested MLOA was denied because the submission deadline had passed without a response. See id. at 21. Wood states that although he was notified that he was denied his requested MLOA, no reason was given. See id. Wood requested, and Steiner approved, a request for vacation leave on March 8 through March 10 and March 17 through March 18, 2016. See id. The vacation was “unpaid” because Wood did not work...