Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00735/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00735-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute the Honorable Michael L. Dominguez as the

successor to James G. Roche.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Harley D. Hembd,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

James G. Roche, Secretary of The Air

Force,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-0735-PHX-DKD

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Dr. James G. Roche's Motion to Dismiss (Doc.

#6), which was converted to a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #15), filed August 25,

2005. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds there exists a material question of fact, and

therefore denies Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties have consented to

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Harley D. Hembd (hereafter "Hembd") is an Aircraft Machinist at Luke Air

Force Base, Arizona. Hembd is an employee of the Defendant and has held this position since

1985. Hembd filed a complaint against Defendant Dr. James G. Roche, Secretary of the Air

Force 1

, on March 8, 2005, alleging that he suffered religious discrimination (Doc #4-1).

Hembd asserts that he suffered religious discrimination when his first-level supervisor at the

time, Clinton Bowdry, did not award Hembd a monetary performance award for the appraisal

Case 2:05-cv-00735-DKD Document 16 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

period of April 1, 2000 through March 31, 2001. Hembd alleges that Bowdry did grant an

award to Hembd's co-worker, Craig Trujillo, and Hembd claims that this award was based on

Trujillo's involvement in religious activities. Hembd filed a complaint with the EEOC on

February 13, 2003, which was subsequently dismissed. Hembd's demands for damages include

the monetary cash award he was denied, plus interest, and any losses incurred due to the filing

of this claim.

Clinton Bowdry has worked at Luke Air Force Base since about October 2000

(Transcript from Department of Defense discrimination investigation hearing, August 6, 2003,

page 50). During the performance period that Hembd asserts he was the victim of religious

discrimination, Bowdry was the Section Chief and Hembd's first-level supervisor in the Metal

Technology Shop (Tr. 51-52). Bowdry completed two performance reports on Hembd and

several of his co-workers ending in 2000 and 2001; during these evaluations, Bowdry inquired

about their volunteer work and considered this work in addition to their work performance in

making his cash award nominations to Civilian Personnel (Tr. 53-56). In using the

"whole-man" concept to evaluate employees, Bowdry admitted using qualifications aside from

simply job performance in nominating employees for monetary awards (Tr. 55). According to

Deborah Clark, who was an Employee Relations Specialist handling the awards program during

the performance period in question, the "whole-man" concept was used by Bowdry alone, and

was not an Air Force-mandated program (Tr. 18-20). However, she did agree that from her

exposure to the military environment, supervisors often looked beyond solely work performance

(Tr. 22-23).

Hembd claims that several of his fellow co-workers, Craig Trujillo, Harvest Smith,

Gerald Baker, and Charles Ambico, received monetary cash awards during the performance

period of April 1, 2000 to March 31, 2001. During the Department of Defense investigatory

hearing, Hembd asserted that prior to Bowdry's supervision, he received numerous monetary

performance awards while working under Sergeant Brooks (Tr. 11-12). Bowdry acknowledged

that although Hembd did not receive an award, the employees who were nominated were

exceptional employees who regularly surpassed expectations (Tr. 58-59). Hembd contends that

Case 2:05-cv-00735-DKD Document 16 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

the most similarly-situated employee to receive a cash award was Craig Trujillo, who also

works as a machinist during the same day shift, and whom Bowdry used as the standard for

comparison (Tr. 10-11). Trujillo and Bowdry both regularly attend church, and Trujillo

volunteers considerable time to church activities (Tr. 28-30, 54). Of the other three employees

nominated by Bowdry during this performance period, all three acknowledged rare to occasional

attendance at Christian churches; none were exceptionally involved in their church or religious

activities. Hembd maintains that Trujillo and the other nominees were selected for the monetary

award due to their religious beliefs and involvement, and that despite not being nominated, he

is very involved with union activities and repeatedly given "priority, mission essential work"

for which Hembd believes he should be recognized. Id.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

For Dr. Dominguez to prevail on his Motion for Summary Judgment, he must show that

there are no genuine issues of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). Hembd must

first establish a prima facie case of discrimination, by showing either direct evidence of

discriminatory intent, or indirectly by circumstantial evidence. In particular, to prove his case

by circumstantial evidence, he must show that (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he

is qualified for the position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) other

employees with qualifications similar to his own were treated more favorably. McDonnell

Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802; see also St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509

U.S. 502, 506 (1993); Tempesta v. Motorola, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 973, 975 (D. Ariz. 1999).

Hembd carries the initial burden of proving a prima facie case of disparate treatment by either

direct or circumstantial evidence. See McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). He

must introduce probative, admissible evidence to establish a prima facie case, and the ultimate

burden remains with him. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, 530 U.S. 133 (2000). 

If Hembd succeeds in establishing a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to

Dr. Dominguez to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for failing to grant a cash

award to Hembd. Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal, 292 F.3d 654 (2002) (quoting

Case 2:05-cv-00735-DKD Document 16 Filed 03/31/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 (1973)). If he states a legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reason, Hembd must demonstrate that the articulated reason is a pretext for unlawful

discrimination by "either directly persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely

motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer's proffered explanation is

unworthy of credence." Id. (quoting Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, 225 F.3d 1115, 1124 (9th

Cir. 2000)). However, Hembd's evidence must be both specific and substantial to overcome the

legitimate reasons put forth by Roche. Id. If Hembd demonstrates pretext, then the

burden-shifting framework disappears, and the only remaining issue is 'discrimination vel non.'

Id. (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000)).

DISCUSSION

First, the Court finds that Hembd has shown he is a member of a protected class because

of his agnostic religious beliefs. Title VII protects against discrimination based on an

individual's religion. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (West 2006). Therefore, a plaintiff is a member of

a protected class if he holds a religious belief. EEOC v. Townley Engineering & Manufacturing

Co., 859 F.2d 610, 614 (9th Cir.1988) (stating that the term "religion" as used in Title VII

includes one's religious beliefs). Agnosticism is a religious belief and therefore Hembd, as an

agnostic, is a member of a protected class. See EEOC v. Townley Engineering &

Manufacturing Co., 859 F.2d at 614 (holding that atheism is a religious belief and atheists are

protected against religious discrimination).

The Court further finds that Hembd has shown he was qualified as an Aircraft Machinist

and eligible for a monetary cash award. Hembd has worked as an Aircraft Machinist since

1985, and has received numerous awards under prior supervisors.

The Court finds that there is a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the failure to

award Hembd a cash award was an adverse employment action. Although not every

employment decision amounts to an adverse employment action, the Ninth Circuit takes an

expansive view of what constitutes an adverse employment action. See Ray v. Henderson, 217

F.3d 1234, 1240-42 (9th Cir. 2000). The question of whether the denial of a cash performance

award is an adverse employment action has not been directly addressed in the Ninth Circuit.

Case 2:05-cv-00735-DKD Document 16 Filed 03/31/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

In other circuits, the failure to receive a monetary bonus is an adverse action if the employee

was automatically entitled to that bonus. Russell v. Principi, 257 F.3d 815, 819 (D.D.C. 2001);

Rabinovitz v. Pena, 89 F.3d 482, 488 (7th Cir.1996) (holding that the "loss of a bonus is not an

adverse employment action...where the employee is not automatically entitled to the bonus").

Here, neither party specifically addressed whether employees are automatically entitled

to a monetary performance award. Hembd claims that prior to Bowdry's supervision, the

awards were automatic, and co-worker Gerald Baker agreed that in the six to eight years prior

to Bowdry's supervision, Baker received awards every year, although not in the first year under

Bowdry's supervision. However, Bowdry testified that the awards were not automatic, and that

further, he simply nominated candidates for the award, and the final determination was made

by another office. Similarly, Deborah Clark, a former Employee Relations Specialist, testified

that while supervisors recommend candidates for awards, higher officials approve all awards

granted. However, it remains a question of fact whether all nominated employees are approved

by the officials, which would render the supervisor's recommendations effectively automatic.

The Court finds that Hembd's allegations are sufficient to raise an issue of material fact as to

whether he suffered from an adverse employment action.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #6). This

denial is without prejudice to the parties' ability to file a motion for summary judgment

following the completion of discovery.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant file an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint

within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order.

DATED this 31st day of March, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00735-DKD Document 16 Filed 03/31/06 Page 5 of 5