Opinion ID: 2976260
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Events Surrounding Mynatt’s Termination

Text: In arguing that racial animus thoroughly infected the RIF process, Mynatt places great weight -6- Mynatt v. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. No. 06-6319 on a series of events surrounding his termination.3 We recount those events below and address their significance (or lack thereof) when we analyze Mynatt’s claims. See discussion infra at pp. 14-15. On August 31, 1999, John Buck, who also worked in the Video Department as a producer, sent an email to Dr. Howard Friedman, company psychologist and chairman of the Threat Assessment Team (TAT). The TAT was a group designed to respond to workplace threats, and LMES employees were instructed to report any threatening behavior. The group consisted of Friedman and representatives from the Labor Relations and Security Departments. In the email, Buck stated that he had “a chance to review the potential list [of layoff candidates] and note that the most likely person to be impacted is someone that has threatened several people in our department. (Myself included) I believe I have a real concern that if this person is impacted he may turn violent.” The email elaborated that the “individual” had been a guard at LMES, owned several guns, knew how to circumvent LMES security, and had a “personality that runs hot and cold.” According to Buck, “Our entire department walks on eggshells whenever he enters a conversation or we need to work with him.” Buck concluded, “I hope that this is all just an unnatural fear; however, I believe that our supervisor might needs [sic] some type of session to tell him how to deal with our coworker if he does get violent.” Buck testified that he had not discussed the matter with anyone before 3 Mynatt also emphasizes certain actions taken long after his termination. In particular, in May 2002, his re-hire status was changed to “ineligible for rehire,” and Mynatt contends that this evidences racial animus in his termination. However, this change in status occurred more than two years after Mynatt’s termination, and none of the managers who decided Mynatt’s RIF were involved. Moreover, LMES had ceased managing the site as of November 1, 2000. There is no basis for concluding that LMES may be held liable for the conduct of a different entity’s employees. Cf. Whitmore v. O’Connor Mgmt., Inc., 156 F.3d 796, 799 (8th Cir. 1998) (finding no legal authority for holding a predecessor liable for the successor’s discriminatory conduct). -7- Mynatt v. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. No. 06-6319 sending the email. On September 1, Friedman replied: Given the information you have told me, I think that the supervisor and department head should meet with me to pursue this further. Please give me their names and I will contact them. Your name will not come up if you wish that confidentiality; I will however tell them the information I have been given. In the meantime, Buck had forwarded his email to Shepherd and Ridley, adding that “I would hope this topic doesn’t come as a complete shock to you . . . but I’m really worried about everyone’s safety.” Buck continued: “When the layoff slips are handed out, we have one effected [sic] person that is very likely to go out of control.” Buck sent an email to Friedman identifying Shepherd and Ridley as his managers. Later in the day on September 1, Friedman called Buck to ask him what had prompted the email. Buck identified Mynatt as the person he was describing in his email. Buck related an incident from the mid-1980s when he answered some calls to the office from Mynatt’s wife. Buck testified that, on one occassion, he had joked with Mrs. Mynatt about whether she was Mynatt’s wife or girlfriend. Later that day, according to Buck, Mynatt took him by the arm, led him outside, and screamed that he did not want Mrs. Mynatt thinking he was having an affair. Buck testified that he apologized profusely, but that Mynatt had stated, “I will get you” and “I will get you back.” Mynatt allegedly added, “You won’t know when and where it’s gonna happen, but I will get you back.” Buck testified that he reported the incident to Shepherd at that time. Buck testified later that he also told Dr. Friedman about other incidents. First, another coworker had once told him that Mynatt had threatened him as well. Second, yet another coworker -8- Mynatt v. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. No. 06-6319 had told him that Mynatt had threatened him in 1998. Third, Buck related that Mynatt would occasionally scream at Ridley, his supervisor. Buck testified that he did not speak to Friedman again about his concerns, subsequent to the initial emails and the phone conversation. Friedman arranged a meeting with Ridley, Shepherd, and Griffith for September 3. Buck was to attend, but could not do so because he was working on a teleconference that could not be canceled. Shepherd testified that he and Griffith spoke by cell phone to Buck while they were en route to the meeting with Friedman. According to Shepherd, Buck said he had “done some figuring” on who was going to be laid off and that lead him to believe Mynatt would be laid off. Buck reiterated his concerns and told Shepherd that he knew of occasions when Mynatt had threatened others. Buck also said that Corey and others in the department were “scared of” Mynatt. Shepherd testified that when Buck told him this, he was aware that individuals in the department had complained to him that they did not want to work with Mynatt or “be close to” him. Shepherd testified that “color” was never mentioned in any of the conversations about Mynatt. At the meeting with Friedman, Shepherd related all of the incidents involving Mynatt of which he was aware. Griffith and Shepherd testified that they expected Friedman to decide what to do, if anything, in response to Buck’s email. A few days after their meeting, Friedman notified Shepherd and Griffith that he had discussed the situation with the TAT and told them how to proceed. Shepherd was to request that a security inspector be stationed nearby the office where Mynatt would get his notice of termination. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mynatt would be told to go directly to Friedman’s office, and Friedman would discuss the accusations with Mynatt. On September 8, Shepherd followed these instructions, and Mynatt was escorted by security to Friedman’s office after his notice meeting. Having gained -9- Mynatt v. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. No. 06-6319 company approval to deny Mynatt access to secure areas following his layoff, Friedman asked Mynatt to surrender his badge. Mynatt was then told that he could use the career center, which was outside the secure area, and security guards escorted him there. Friedman then notified the plant shift superintendent that Mynatt’s security access was revoked. The shift superintendent had Mynatt’s badge deactivated and posted Mynatt’s photograph at the secure area’s entry points. Charlie Miner, manager of the Labor Relations Department and a member of the TAT, testified that he and the security chief made the decision to post Mynatt’s photograph. Miner testified that he routinely posted photographs in the guard shacks along the perimeter of the secure areas to ensure that certain people were not admitted. Friedman testified that he did not know Mynatt’s photo would be posted. The photo of Mynatt showed his face, name, and badge number and stated that access was denied to all portals. At least one of the photos included a handwritten notation: “Individual has made verbal threats after receiving layoff notice.” Another photo had been defaced with writing stating, “I want to whip J.E. Watts crazy, country RED NECK ASS!” An additional notation added “aka (Pissed Off)” next to Mynatt’s name. D. The Response To The Tennessee Human Rights Commission Mynatt filed a charge of discrimination with the Tennessee Human Rights Commission (THRC) in October 1999. James Barnes, head of Workforce Diversity at LMES, investigated the charge and submitted to THRC a letter on February 22, 2000, in which he stated that race had played no part in Mynatt’s termination. In response to a request for further information, Barnes wrote on August 23, 2000, that Mynatt had been downsized “as part of a budget necessity.” He also added: - 10 - Mynatt v. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. No. 06-6319 Approximately 2 to 3 days prior to the September 8, 1999, notification to employees selected for downsizing, Mr. Mynatt was overheard to make several threatening statements. Among these were, “If I receive a layoff notice, the next thing you will see is my picture in the papers and gun shoved up [my supervisor’s] ass.” “I have guns at home.” “My Viet Nam days are coming back to me.” “I know where you live.” These threats were reported to Mr. Mynatt’s management and to Dr. Howard Friedman, who is our Plant Psychologist and head of the Company’s TAT. Barnes described LMES’s workplace violence policy and stated that employees could be escorted from the property if the individual was “reasonable believed to be potentially harmful to himself/herself, to others, or to company facilities . . . .” Barnes noted that since the creation of the policy, Mynatt and one other employee, a white male, had been escorted out of the plant. Barnes included a detailed description of the LMES RIF process, stating that Mynatt’s position was eliminated because of a reduction in budget and that his managers had determined that his job could be eliminated or absorbed. Barnes also included the Layoff Comparison and Peer Comparison Profiles forms. As Mynatt points out, Barnes’s letter is not entirely accurate. The quotes to which Barnes refers in his letter were not discussed with Friedman or the TAT. In fact, they were reported by a Linda Cantrell to her supervisor on September 9, after Mynatt had received his layoff notice on September 8. According to Shepherd, Cantrell told him on September 9 that Mynatt had jokingly told her before the layoff that he would “have a gun shoved up [Shepherd’s] ass.” Cantrell told Shepherd that she did not initially report the threat because she was not sure she should get involved and thought that Mynatt was likely joking. Shepherd told Griffith about the threat and did not pursue the matter further. When Barnes was gathering information for the THRC, Griffith discussed the matter with him, and he then erroneously conflated that threat with the actual incident reported to - 11 - Mynatt v. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. No. 06-6319 the TAT via Buck’s email to Dr. Friedman.