Opinion ID: 626092
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Thomas. On or about March 12, 2004, Defendant

Text: terminated the employment of Thomas on the basis of his race (Black), in violation of Title VII. Thus, the allegedly “unlawful employment practices” under Title VII6 at issue in this case are these initial decisions and not the disciplinary decisions made by the administrative appeals boards. KCSR mistakenly relies upon cases in which the final decisionmaker was different from the intermediate supervisor with discriminatory animus toward 5 Turner filed an Intervenor Complaint alleging that his claim “arises out of the same facts and circumstances, occurring at the same time, [and] involves the same set of witnesses, facts and laws as the matter contained in the EEOC’s complaint; Title VII.” 6 Title VII provides, among other things, that “[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). 10 No. 09-30558 the plaintiff. See Jennings v. Ill. Dep’t of Corrs., 496 F.3d 764 (7th Cir. 2007); Mato v. Baldauf, 267 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2001); Sherrod v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 132 F.3d 1112 (5th Cir. 1998). Here, by contrast, the plaintiffs contend that the final decisionmaker was Thornell; that he was motivated by discriminatory animus when he made the decisions to dismiss Turner, Thomas, and Cargo, and to suspend Frank; and that these decisions violated Title VII. Therefore, we do not agree with KCSR that the plaintiffs need to show that the alleged discriminatory animus motivating the disciplinary decisions at issue in this case “caused” later decisions that are not at issue. B. Turning to whether the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of discrimination, we conclude that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have met their burden with regard to the decisions to dismiss Turner and Thomas, but not the decisions to suspend Frank and to dismiss Cargo.
With regards to the decision to dismiss Turner, we conclude that the plaintiffs have met their burden to establish a prima facie case by showing that Turner received more severe discipline than a similarly situated white employee, Thomas Schmitt, under nearly identical circumstances. See Lee, 574 F.3d at 259-61.7 “The employment actions being compared will be deemed to have been taken under nearly identical circumstances when the employees being compared held the same job or responsibilities, shared the same supervisor or had their 7 We note that the plaintiffs also argue that they established a prima facie case by showing that Turner did not in fact violate any workplace rule. We need not address this argument, however, because we conclude that they have met their burden by showing disparate treatment of a similarly situated white employee. Of course, this does not foreclose the plaintiffs from presenting evidence to the jury that Turner did not violate a workplace rule and arguing that the jury can infer discrimination from such evidence. 11 No. 09-30558 employment status determined by the same person, and have essentially comparable violation histories.” Id. at 260. “[W]e require that an employee who proffers a fellow employee as a comparator [to] demonstrate that the employment actions at issue were taken under nearly identical circumstances.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). However, we must keep in mind that we are reviewing KCSR’s motion for summary judgment, and thus, we “must view the facts in the light most favorable to” the plaintiffs, WC&M Enters., 496 F.3d at 397; and KCSR is required to “show[] that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Turner was terminated following an incident on October 1, 2002, in which he and Schmitt were operating a train—Turner, as the engineer, was controlling the locomotive; Schmitt, as the conductor, was providing instructions to Turner via radio from the ground—when the damaged engine that their train was shoving onto a spur track derailed at a low speed. Turner’s letter of termination stated that Turner was found to have violated KCSR “General Code of Operating Rules 2.13, 6.22, 6.28, 7.1, 7.12, and 7.2.” The plaintiffs contend that a comparable employment action for Schmitt was the decision to not discipline him following the derailment incident for which Turner was dismissed. However, KCSR argues that this decision was not made under nearly identical circumstances because Schmitt was found not to be at fault in the derailment incident. The EEOC points to record evidence—viz., the deposition of Paul Lobello, who was responsible for investigating this incident for KCSR—which indicates that Schmitt was also at fault. Therefore, according to the EEOC, the disparate decisions, most likely made by the same individual, J.R. Thornell, are comparable. Lobello’s deposition, however, indicates that he believed that Schmitt and Turner were not necessarily equally at fault. We need not decide, however, whether Turner’s and Schmitt’s conduct was “nearly identical” because the plaintiffs have offered another employment action 12 No. 09-30558 for Schmitt that we conclude is comparable: the decision to suspend Schmitt for 45 days for a sideswipe incident that occurred on October 30, 2002, only a few weeks after the derailment incident. According to KCSR’s own records relating to that incident, Schmitt was found responsible for “violation of restricted speed or the operational equivalent thereof, failure to protect a shoving movement on the main line resulting in a run through of the crossover switch, [and] sideswiping 2 hazardous material cars — [General Code of Operating Rules] 1.1.1, 1.6, 2.13, 6.28, 6.5, 7.1, 7.2 and System Timetable No. 5 Rule 1.16.” Two points convince us that Schmitt’s violations arising from the sideswipe incident are comparable to Turner’s putative violations in the derailment incident. First, Schmitt was found to have violated most of the same workplace rules that Turner was found to have violated. Second, KCSR does not dispute that there is a meaningful distinction between the rules that Turner and Schmitt were found to have violated. Instead, KCSR argues that “[g]enerally, a derailment is a more serious incident than a sideswipe.” KCSR Br. 32 (citing a statement from the affidavit of KCSR’s Director of Labor Relations that says, “a derailment is generally a more serious incident than a sideswipe”). In contrast to this general statement, Paul Lobello, who investigated both the derailment and sideswipe incidents, testified in his deposition about these specific incidents. He testified that this sideswipe incident was “more severe” than the derailment incident in terms of “[t]he damages and the hazardous material,” and that otherwise, “[t]he circumstances were the same . . . with regards to the fact that in both instances we had a locomotive engineer that operated without proper guidance.” “As the Supreme Court has instructed, the similitude of employee violations may turn on the ‘comparable seriousness’ of the offenses for which discipline was meted out and not necessarily on how a company codes an infraction under its rules and regulations,” Lee, 574 F.3d at 261 (footnote omitted); and we have explained that “[t]he relevant perspective 13 No. 09-30558 is that of the employer at the time of the adverse employment decision.” Id. at 261 n.27. Under that standard, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, these violations are comparably serious. Additionally, the record evidence shows that Schmitt and Turner had “the same . . . responsibilities,” and “had their employment status determined by the same person.” Id. at 260. Although Turner was an engineer and Schmitt was a conductor, KCSR does not contend that Schmitt’s responsibilities during the sideswipe incident were materially different than Turner’s responsibilities during the derailment incident.8 Further, KCSR has averred that J.R. Thornell is most likely the person who was responsible for making the decisions to dismiss Turner and to suspend Schmitt. We are also satisfied that Turner and Schmitt had “essentially comparable violation histories.” Id. According to KCSR’s records, Turner had the following disciplinary history preceding the derailment incident: In December 2000, Turner was reinstated after having been dismissed in October 1999 for failing a random alcohol test; in 1988, he was suspended for ten days for a failed brake test; and in 1982, he received a written reprimand for a deficient train inspection.9 KCSR acknowledges that Schmitt had the following disciplinary history preceding the sideswipe incident: In 1999, Schmitt was discharged for failing to follow directions (and later reinstated); in 1990, he received a written 8 Indeed, KCSR quotes its own General Code of Operating Rule 1.47 as providing: “[T]he conductor and the engineer are responsible for the safety and protection of their train [and] observance of the rules . . . . [I]f any doubts arise concerning the authority for proceeding or safety, the conductor must consult with the engineer who will be equally responsible for the safety and proper handling of the train.” 9 The record in this case also includes a 1974 drug test for Turner that showed “a long acting barbiturate,” but there is no indication that Turner was disciplined as a result of this test, and KCSR does not include this incident in its chart of Turner’s “[d]iscipline [h]istory at [t]ime of [v]iolation.” KCSR Br. 62. 14 No. 09-30558 reprimand;10 and in 1988, he received two written reprimands and was later discharged for failing an alcohol test following a derailment in which he was the brakeman. In sum, Turner had one prior violation serious enough to warrant dismissal and one violation serious enough to warrant a short suspension; on the other hand, Schmitt had two previous infractions serious enough to warrant dismissal both times. These employment histories, which are marked by a comparable number of serious violations by train operators with similar responsibilities, are sufficiently similar to require comparison. See id. at 261-62. KCSR argues that Turner’s and Schmitt’s employment histories are not comparable because Schmitt’s positive alcohol test occurred many years before the sideswipe incident when he was acting as a brakeman, whereas Turner’s positive alcohol test occurred two years before the derailment incident when Turner was an engineer. However, these distinctions do not render Turner’s and Schmitt’s employment histories incomparable. We have “emphasize[d] . . . that this Circuit’s ‘nearly identical’ standard is not equivalent to ‘identical.’” Id. at 260 n.25; see also id. at 260 (“We do not . . . interpret ‘nearly identical’ as synonymous with ‘identical.’”); id. at 261 (“Each employee’s track record at the company need not comprise the identical number of identical infractions . . . .”). A requirement of something more stringent than nearly identical employment histories would run afoul of the Supreme Court’s instruction that “[t]he burden of establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment is not onerous.” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253. It is also worth noting that Schmitt’s positive alcohol test occurred in connection with an incident in which a train derailed, whereas Turner’s test was a random test unrelated to any incident. Therefore, Schmitt’s alcohol incident was not so much less serious than Turner’s as to undermine our conclusion that Schmitt and Turner had comparable employment histories. 10 Turner also points out that the record shows that Schmitt was issued a second written reprimand in 1990. 15 No. 09-30558 The parties also quarrel over the significance of Turner’s December 2000 reinstatement order. KCSR contends that “Turner’s recent reinstatement was on a ‘last-chance’ basis, meaning he could be dismissed for any further violations.” KCSR Br. 32; see also id. at 33 (“The order d[id] not limit [Turner’s] last-chance status to alcohol/drug violations, nor d[id] it preclude his dismissal for other violations, such as derailment.”). According to KCSR, Schmitt was not similarly situated to Turner because he was not on a “last-chance basis” at the time of the sideswipe incident. The EEOC responds that the reinstatement order was related only to drug and alcohol testing and there was no allegation that Turner was intoxicated or refused a drug or alcohol test in relation to the derailment incident; thus, the reinstatement order was not implicated. We agree that the mere fact of the reinstatement order does not render Turner’s disciplinary history incomparable to Schmitt’s. The reinstatement order provided only that a violation of any of its terms would be “sufficient grounds for [Turner’s] permanent dismissal,” and the derailment incident did not implicate any of the terms of the reinstatement order. Therefore, the derailment incident did not, based on the terms of the reinstatement order, provide “sufficient grounds” to dismiss Turner. Moreover, in the same period of time that Turner had been dismissed and later reinstated, Schmitt had also been discharged, for failing to follow directions, and later reinstated. Thus, Schmitt’s disciplinary history is comparable to Turner’s, despite the reinstatement order. KCSR may still argue to the jury that these distinctions between Turner’s and Schmitt’s infractions and employment histories account for the difference in their discipline; however, we cannot say that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, these distinctions show that the employment actions were not taken under nearly identical circumstances. Therefore, we conclude that the plaintiffs have met their burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination with regard to the decision to dismiss Turner. 16 No. 09-30558
We also conclude that the EEOC has met its burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination with regard to the decision to dismiss Lester Thomas by showing that a white employee, Joshua Hall, was disciplined less severely than Thomas under nearly identical circumstances.11 Thomas was dismissed following an incident in February 2004 in which the train that he and Hall were operating—Thomas was the conductor and Hall was the engineer—failed to stop within the appropriate distance of a “dark signal” during an unannounced safety test. Hall was initially dismissed, then reinstated thirty days later. KCSR’s Disciplinary Action Reports for Thomas and Hall, generated after the investigation and hearing to determine whether any workplace rules were violated, both specify that Thomas and Hall committed the exact same infractions: “[General Code of Operating Rules] 1.1.1, 8.9, 8.9.1, 8.10 & TT No. 5[,] Page 198, Item 9[.] Failure to control train in accordance with a signal displaying a dark aspect at S. LaBarre in addition to f/t update consist after picking up cars from Baton Rouge Yard while serving as [‘Engineer’ in Hall’s case, and ‘Conductor’ in Thomas’ case] of the INOKC.” Therefore, it is abundantly clear that Thomas’ and Hall’s violations “were essentially the same.” Lee, 574 F.3d at 260 n.25. KCSR argues that Thomas and Hall were not equally at fault for two reasons: “First, only Thomas failed to update the train consist, and thereby committed rule violations that Hall did not.” KCSR Br. 39. However, KCSR’s Disciplinary Action Reports for Thomas and Hall state that both men were found 11 The EEOC argues also, as it did for Turner, see supra note 4, that it established a prima facie case by showing that Thomas did not in fact violate any workplace rule. As with Turner, we need not reach this argument because we conclude that the EEOC has met its burden by showing disparate treatment of a similarly situated white employee. Accordingly, we make the same observation here that we made with regard to Turner’s claim: Our decision does not foreclose the EEOC from presenting evidence to the jury that Thomas did not violate a workplace rule and arguing that the jury can infer discrimination from such evidence. 17 No. 09-30558 to have failed to update the consist. Therefore, the record does not support KCSR’s assertion. Second, KCSR argues that Thomas was more at fault for the failure of the train to timely stop because “[Thomas], but not Hall, failed to diligently watch for the signal as the rules require.” Id. However, in McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U.S. 273 (1976), the Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that in order to establish a prima facie case the plaintiffs “were required to plead with ‘particularity’ the degree of similarity between their culpability in the alleged theft and the involvement of the favored coemployee.” Id. at 283 n.11. Instead, the Court held that “precise equivalence in culpability between employees is not the ultimate question.” Id. The ultimate question is “the ‘comparable seriousness’ of the offenses.” Lee, 574 F.3d at 261, 260 n.25; see also McDonald, 427 U.S. at 283 n.11. Viewed in the light most favorable to the EEOC, Thomas’s and Hall’s offenses are comparably serious. KCSR does not allege that Thomas and Hall are incomparable because of differences in their responsibilities; nor does it allege that the employment status of each was determined by different people. The only remaining issue is whether Thomas and Hall “have essentially comparable violation histories.” Lee, 574 F.3d at 260. We conclude that they do. KCSR’s only argument about why their histories are incomparable is based on the fact that Thomas had a greater number of violations than Hall—Thomas had eight infractions in his disciplinary history whereas Hall had only four. See KCSR Br. 39-40, 63. However, as the EEOC correctly points out, Thomas began working for KCSR in 1981, whereas Hall was hired in 2000. As we said in Lee, “[e]ach employee’s track record at the company need not comprise the identical number of identical infractions, albeit these records must be comparable.” 574 F.3d at 261. In Lee, we concluded that “employment histories marked by a comparable number of serious moving violations” were comparable by looking only at the violations that had occurred “[d]uring the same period.” Id. In this case, in the four years preceding the 18 No. 09-30558 incident, during which time Thomas and Hall both worked at KCSR, Thomas had five violations to Hall’s four;12 both of them had three moving violations; and Hall was disciplined for an incident involving a sideswipe and another involving a derailment, whereas Thomas was cited for only one derailment. We must view the facts in the light most favorable to the EEOC, and KCSR must show the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact to be entitled to summary judgment. However, KCSR has made no argument about why Thomas’ and Hall’s infractions are incomparable. Thus, we conclude that Hall is a proper comparator whom the district court erroneously rejected.
The EEOC contends that it established a prima facie case of discrimination with regard to the 90-day suspension of Jesse Frank for a missed call because Frank Mouney is a valid comparator, and Mouney was disciplined less severely than Frank under nearly identical circumstances. We disagree because Frank’s and Mouney’s employment histories are not sufficiently similar. See Lee, 574 F.3d at 261-62. There are some similarities in their employment histories: Frank was hired in 1972 and Mouney in 1978; Frank’s first recorded violation was in 1985 and Mouney’s was in 1984; and both had a comparable number of violations for missed calls. However, there are also critical differences: Frank had significantly more moving violations than Mouney, including one that resulted in Frank having his engineer’s license suspended; and unlike Mouney, Frank was discharged in 1997 due to a failed alcohol test. Therefore, we conclude that Frank’s and Mouney’s employment records are not “essentially comparable,” id. at 260; and thus, that the EEOC has not 12 KCSR mistakenly claims that “[s]ix of [Thomas’] prior incidents occurred between January 2002 and January 2004.” KCSR Br. 40. That misstatement is belied by KCSR’s own chart, which reveals that Thomas had five infractions in that period. Id. at 63. 19 No. 09-30558 established a prima facie case of discrimination for the decision to suspend Frank for ninety days for a missed call.
With respect to the decision to dismiss Clarence Cargo, the EEOC contends only that it established a prima facie case based on its “same incident test.” See supra note 4. However, the EEOC failed to argue before the district court that under McDonald, 427 U.S. 273, it could establish a prima facie case simply by showing that two employees of different races received disparate treatment from their participation in the same incident. Thus, we will not consider this argument for the first time on appeal. See Nasti, 492 F.3d at 595.