Opinion ID: 2827469
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Commission-Developed Facts And Decision

Text: The Commission notified Rodriguez and Delta that it had initiated an investigation to determine whether Rodriguez’s discrimination complaint was supported by substantial evidence. A Commission investigator interviewed Rodriguez, his union representative, and Delta staff. The investigator also reviewed Delta’s position statement and Delta’s responses to information requests. The Commission determined that Rodriguez previously had worked for Northwest Airlines and became a Delta employee when the two airlines merged. Rodriguez had been employed as an equipment service employee (ESE) in cargo operations in Anchorage. In December 2009 Delta had informed Rodriguez and other ESEs that they would be furloughed from their positions as full-time cargo-operations ESEs. Delta explained to the Commission that this furlough “caused [Rodriguez and the -2- 7033 other cargo-operations ESEs] to transfer to similar ESE positions working with scheduled passenger flights on the aircraft operations ramp.” Furloughed employees were offered part-time temporary positions in Anchorage. But under the terms of his union’s collective bargaining agreement, when furloughed Rodriguez also was entitled to exercise his seniority and displace a junior ESE at another location. In May 2010 Rodriguez exercised his seniority and requested a transfer to Seattle. Rodriguez told the Commission that he did not have the opportunity to bid for a part-time position in Anchorage, and that a Caucasian employee with less seniority was allowed to remain in a position in Anchorage. Rodriguez also asserted that while working on the ramp in Anchorage, after the furlough from cargo operations, he “was constantly harassed (called ‘faggot’ and other names) by his supervisor Nash and several coworkers.” In April 2010 Delta received complaints about Nash’s behavior, subsequently conducted an investigation, and in July terminated Nash’s employment. During the investigation Rodriguez informed Delta that Nash gave Rodriguez no overtime, harassed him, made comments about his sexuality, and retaliated against him for reporting to management. Approximately two weeks after accepting the Seattle position, and before working a single shift, Rodriguez requested a transfer back to Anchorage. Delta granted Rodriguez’s request and in July, shortly after Nash had been terminated, Delta offered Rodriguez a temporary ESE position in Anchorage. After returning to Anchorage Rodriguez worked one day but then called in sick for his next five shifts. Delta informed the Commission that Rodriguez had then “abruptly requested to end his temporary assignment and return to furlough status.” Rodriguez attempted to justify to the Commission his poor work attendance and furlough request, explaining that his union representative recommended layoff status because Rodriguez was depressed, stressed, and afraid after receiving harassing -3- 7033 telephone calls from Nash. Rodriguez asserted that he reported the calls but Delta human resources would not allow him to take stress-based injury leave and would not allow him to return to furlough status without providing documentation establishing medical reasons. Rodriguez also claimed that a Delta manager told him to go on layoff status. Delta explained that it subsequently determined that it “needed another temporary ESE” in Anchorage. Delta did not offer Rodriguez the assignment because there were limited opportunities and Rodriguez “gave . . . airport leaders a poor impression of his dependability and willingness to resume working.”1 Delta instead offered the position to a “less senior active Caucasian ESE.” Rodriguez asserted that the Caucasian ESE and additional less senior employees were called back for full-time positions, violating the collective bargaining agreement. Delta contested Rodriguez’s assertion, explaining that after July 2010 it had not hired or re-hired any ESEs and had instead relied on existing ESEs working temporary assignments. Delta explained to the Commission that “the fact that . . . Rodriguez was not selected [for the temporary ESE position] bears no relation to . . . Rodriguez’s ability to be recalled for permanent work. Indeed, if and when permanent positions open up at his work location, . . . Rodriguez will be recalled to duty based entirely on his seniority.” Delta explained that “[i]f a temporary ESE position is intended to last no longer than three months, Delta can by-pass seniority and select an ESE at its discretion to fill the short-term assignment” because the collective bargaining agreement did not require that Delta make temporary position offers based on employee seniority. And Delta argued that Rodriguez’s assertion that he was not selected for the temporary assignment because of his race “is based solely on speculation and is easily contradicted by the poor 1 There is evidence in the record that Rodriguez’s poor attendance predated the Northwest-Delta merger and that Rodriguez was admonished by Northwest for poor work attendance. -4- 7033 attendance and reliability he demonstrated when he was previously selected for the temporary position. Indeed, he was passed over for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.” Delta provided evidence that it filled temporary positions after July 1, 2010 with a diverse group of ESEs, selecting five Asian-Americans, three Caucasians, and one African-American. Delta explained that Rodriguez was not offered the subsequent temporary ESE position because of Rodriguez’s failure to work in Seattle as well as his poor attendance when he returned to Anchorage — Delta denied any of its decisions were motivated by race. Delta also explained that the less senior Caucasian ESE “maintained perfect attendance; unlike . . . Rodriguez he did not even miss one scheduled work day.” Delta provided evidence of hours worked to support its assertion. And in May 2011 Rodriguez was offered and accepted another temporary ESE position. The Commission concluded that Rodriguez’s December 2009 furlough was not timely challenged. The Commission therefore did not determine whether there was substantial evidence that Rodriguez had been furloughed because of his race.2 The Commission next addressed Rodriguez’s assertion that Delta discriminated against him because of his race by hiring a junior Caucasian employee instead of Rodriguez when filling the temporary position in September 2010. The Commission explained that “[e]vidence showed that [Delta], in making its selection, compared [Rodriguez’s] poor attendance during his last two assignments with the other ESE’s good attendance record,” that Rodriguez “accepted another temporary ESE position with [Delta] in May 2011,” and that the “[i]nvestigation did not show that [Delta] discriminated against 2 During the investigation the Commission informed Rodriguez: “Your first allegation — that your position was deleted and the position of a Caucasian worker was not deleted is not timely for this complaint. This occurred more than 180 days before your complaint was filed.” -5- 7033 [Rodriguez] based on his race.” The Commission found Rodriguez’s discrimination allegation was not supported by substantial evidence and dismissed his complaint without a hearing.3