Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_03-cv-05307/USCOURTS-arwd-5_03-cv-05307-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Castural Thompson
Plaintiff
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

CASTURAL THOMPSON PLAINTIFF

V. Civil No. 03-5307

WAL-MART STORES, INC. DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court for disposition following

a four-day trial to the Court beginning on August 23, 2005. The

parties were given until September 23, 2005 to submit

simultaneous, post-trial briefs and until October 3, 2005 to

file a reply. These briefs, as well as the evidence and

testimony submitted at trial, has been considered by the Court.

Plaintiff Castural Thompson brought this action against

Wal-Mart pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff claims that

Wal-Mart violated his rights by unlawfully discriminating

against him because of his race. Wal-Mart denies that

Plaintiff’s race had anything to do with its decision to demote

Plaintiff. The only hint of anything racial in the trial was

testimony from Plaintiff that his supervisor, Mike Huffaker,

requested that Plaintiff handle all issues involving AfricanAmerican employees. Mr. Huffaker denied the allegation and

nothing further was presented that indicated any racial animus

on the part of Wal-Mart. The following will constitute the

Case 5:03-cv-05307-RTD Document 73 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by

Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Findings of Fact

During the trial, the following facts were established by

the evidence:

1. Plaintiff is an African-American.

2. Plaintiff was employed by Wal-Mart in various positions

since 1979 to include an Assistant Store Manager, Store

Manager, District Manager, Regional Manager and Regional

Vice-president. As a Regional Vice-president, Plaintiff

was an officer of Wal-Mart.

3. Plaintiff has spent his entire career with Wal-Mart, and it

is undisputed that he has been and remains a valued

employee. 

4. In 1998, Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor was changed from

Larry Williams to Mike Huffaker. Immediately prior to this

change, Mr. Williams provided Plaintiff with favorable

performance evaluations.

5. As Regional Vice-president under Larry Williams, Plaintiff

was assigned to a territory that encompassed northern New

York, eastern and western Pennsylvania, Ohio and parts of

West Virginia. Plaintiff supervised approximately eightyfive (85) stores and twelve District Managers. 

Case 5:03-cv-05307-RTD Document 73 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Wal-Mart refers to its employees as associates. 1

-3-

6. As Regional Vice-president under Mike Huffaker, Plaintiff

was assigned to a territory that encompassed southern New

York, New York City, Rhode Island, New Jersey and

Connecticut. In this territory, Plaintiff had six District

Managers who were not performing up to company standards.

Despite being transferred to a territory with stores

riddled with performance and employee problems, Plaintiff

was able to bring about marked improvement in this

territory.

7. Despite Plaintiff’s success in his new territory under Mr.

Huffaker, it is clear that a personality conflict existed

between Plaintiff and Mr. Huffaker. However, nothing in

the testimony or evidence presented at trial would lead a

reasonable factfinder to believe that any conflict existed

due to Plaintiff’s race.

8. Wal-Mart has a corporate policy referred to at trial as the

“Open Door”. (Defendant’s Exhibit 22). The Open Door

policy provides an avenue for associates to address any 1

problems or concerns with any supervisor, including Senior

Management. The Open Door policy provides that any

supervisor who suppresses the Open Door or retaliates

against an associate for using the Open Door has engaged

Case 5:03-cv-05307-RTD Document 73 Filed 10/07/05 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

in misconduct and may be disciplined, to include

termination.

9. In 2000, Tom Coughlin, then President of Wal-Mart Stores

Division, received an Open Door complaint regarding

Plaintiff from one of the District Managers under

Plaintiff’s supervision. Mr. Coughlin requested that

Charlyn Jarrells Porter, Vice President of Wal-Mart Stores

People Division and Labor Relations conduct an

investigation. 

10. As a result of her investigation, Ms. Porter concluded that

Plaintiff was exhibiting undesirable leadership tactics and

was responsible for rehiring Store Manager Ron Jackson.

Mr. Jackson was previously terminated from Wal-Mart for

fraternization and time card fraud which was an integrity

violation. Wal-Mart policy dictates that an employee who

is terminated for an integrity violation is not eligible

for rehire with the company. 

11. Wal-Mart policy defines fraternization as any romantic

involvement between a supervisor and an associate he or she

supervises or whose terms and conditions of employment he

or she may have the ability to influence. (Wal-Mart’s

Exhibit 25). An integrity violation is considered gross

misconduct for which an employee is subject to immediate

Case 5:03-cv-05307-RTD Document 73 Filed 10/07/05 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

termination. (Wal-Mart’s Exhibit 23). Some examples

include: theft of company time, theft,

dishonesty/compromised integrity and fraud. Id.

12. Ms. Porter shared the results of her investigation with Mr.

Coughlin, Don Harris, then Executive Vice President of

Operations of Wal-Mart Stores Division and Mr. Huffaker.

13. On October 6, 2000, Ms. Porter, Mr. Huffaker and Mr. Harris

met with Plaintiff to discuss the results of the

investigation. At that time, Plaintiff did not challenge

Ms. Porter’s finding that he rehired Ron Jackson with the

knowledge that Jackson had committed an integrity violation

and was not eligible for rehire. After this meeting, Mr.

Harris decided to recommend to Mr. Coughlin that Plaintiff

be demoted from his position as Regional Vice President and

officer of the company.

14. On October 27, 2000, Mr. Coughlin, Mr. Huffaker, Mr. Harris

and Ms. Porter again met with Plaintiff regarding the

results of the investigation. Plaintiff again did not

refute the allegation that he rehired Ron Jackson.

15. On November 1, 2000, Mr. Coughlin, Mr. Huffaker, Mr. Harris

and Ms. Porter provided Plaintiff with a Coaching for

Improvement Form. The form outlined that the reasons for

demoting Plaintiff were leadership issues and rehiring Ron

Case 5:03-cv-05307-RTD Document 73 Filed 10/07/05 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-6-

Jackson. Plaintiff responded to the form in writing on

November 3, 2000, but yet again did not refute the

allegation that he rehired Ron Jackson. The plaintiff made

no claim of race discrimination at that time.

16. Plaintiff was demoted for the rehiring of Ron Jackson who

had admitted fraternization with an associate he supervised

as well as time card fraud, an integrity violation.

Conclusions of Law

1. Title 42, Section 1981 of the United States Code creates

an independent cause of action against private employers

for racial discrimination. Jett v. Dallas Independent

School Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (1989). We analyze Section 1981

claims in the same manner as Title VII disparate treatment

claims. Davis v. KARK-TV, Inc., 421 F.3d 699 (8 Cir. th

2005). 

2. In order to prevail on the issue of liability for race

discrimination, Plaintiff must establish a prima facie case

by showing that he (1) is a member of a racial minority,

(2) was qualified for his position, and (3) suffered an

adverse employment action under circumstances permitting

an inference that the action was the result of unlawful

discrimination. Johnson v. Ready Mixed Concrete Co., 2005

WL 2333836 (8 Cir. Sept. 26, 2005). The burden of th

Case 5:03-cv-05307-RTD Document 73 Filed 10/07/05 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-7-

production then shifts to Wal-Mart to articulate a

legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse

employment action, in this case, a demotion. Id. If WalMart satisfies this burden, Plaintiff must show that WalMart’s reason is a pretext for intentional discrimination.

Id. Plaintiff always bears the burden of proving that the

adverse employment action was motivated by a discriminatory

animus. See St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S.

502, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 125 L. Ed. 2d 407 (1993); Texas Dept.

of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S. Ct.

1089, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1981); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668

(1973).

3. This Court concludes that Mr. Thompson has failed to

establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination

against Wal-Mart, because he failed to show that he was

meeting Wal-Mart’s legitimate expectations, and even if,

meeting Wal-Mart’s legitimate expectations, Wal-Mart’s

proffered reasons for demoting him are legitimate and nondiscriminatory. Plaintiff was demoted from his position

as Regional Vice-president and officer of Wal-Mart because

he improperly rehired Ron Jackson and was exhibiting

undesirable leadership tactics, and thus, failed to meet

Case 5:03-cv-05307-RTD Document 73 Filed 10/07/05 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-8-

Wal-Mart’s legitimate expectations. There was obviously

a personality conflict and communication difficulties

between Mr. Huffaker and Plaintiff although their offices

were within a few feet of each other.

4. Plaintiff contends that the reasons offered by Wal-Mart are

pretextual because they are factually incorrect. Plaintiff

must show that not only was Wal-Mart incorrect in its

conclusion that Plaintiff was responsible for rehiring Ron

Jackson, but that Wal-Mart did not believe that he did so.

See Johnson, supra. Even if Wal-Mart had no “solid proof”

that Plaintiff rehired Ron Jackson or was mistaken in

believing Plaintiff had rehired Jackson, such mistake does

not automatically prove that Wal-Mart was motivated by

unlawful discrimination. See Johnson v. AT&T Corp., 422

F.3d 756 (8 Cir. 2005). While the Court believes there th

was sufficient evidence presented at trial to determine

that Plaintiff was responsible for rehiring Mr. Jackson

despite the integrity violation, that finding is not

necessary to support the Court’s decision that Plaintiff

has failed to make a prima facie case of racial

discrimination. The Court finds that Wal-Mart was

motivated in a good faith belief that Plaintiff rehired Ron

Jackson knowing that he had committed an integrity

Case 5:03-cv-05307-RTD Document 73 Filed 10/07/05 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-9-

violation and thus, was not eligible for rehire.

Therefore, Wal-Mart was not motivated by Plaintiff’s race

and any proof that Wal-Mart reached the wrong conclusion

about Jackson’s rehire is wholly inadequate to prove

Plaintiff’s claim of racial discrimination. Id. 

5. Plaintiff also contends the circumstances surrounding his

demotion give rise to an inference of discrimination as

similarly situated employees, who are not African-American,

were treated differently. Plaintiff’s argument fails as

these other employees must be “similarly situated in all

respects” meaning the individuals used as comparators “must

have dealt with the same supervisor, have been subject to

the same standards, and engaged in the same conduct without

any mitigating or distinguishing circumstances.” See

Rodgers v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 417 F.3d 845 (8 Cir. 2005). th

6. Employment decisions that are unfair or can even be

considered the result of poor business judgment are not

actionable under Title VII. See Hill v. St. Louis Univ.,

123 F.3d 1114 (8 Cir. 1997). While better cooperation th

and communication between supervisors and those being

supervised would be desirable, such failure does not

establish a cause of action under Title VII.

7. Federal courts do not sit as a super-personnel department

Case 5:03-cv-05307-RTD Document 73 Filed 10/07/05 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-10-

that reexamines an entity’s business decisions. See Harvey

v. Anheuser Busch, Inc., 38 F.3d 968 (8 Cir. 1994). As th

the Court has already stated, it is undisputed that

Plaintiff has been and remains a valued employee of WalMart. The Court has carefully examined and re-examined the

evidence and can only conclude that Wal-Mart’s decision to

demote Plaintiff was not motivated in any sense by

Plaintiff’s race. 

Order

Based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes that

Plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence

his claim for race discrimination. Accordingly, judgment is for

the defendant, and Plaintiff’s claim should be and hereby is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with all parties to bear their own

fees and costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7 day of October 2005. th

/s/ Robert T. Dawson

Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

.

Case 5:03-cv-05307-RTD Document 73 Filed 10/07/05 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: <pageID>