Pearson v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority , 723 F.3d 36 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •           United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 12-1956
    KEITH PEARSON,
    Plaintiff, Appellant,
    v.
    MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,
    Defendant, Appellee.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
    [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
    Before
    Howard, Circuit Judge,
    Souter,* Associate Justice,
    and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
    Mitchell J. Notis for appellant.
    Jeffrey A. Dretler, with whom Walter B. Prince and Price Lobel
    Tye LLP were on brief, for appellee.
    July 15, 2013
    *
    Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice (Ret.) of the
    Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by designation.
    SOUTER, Associate Justice.      Keith Pearson appeals the
    district     court’s   summary   judgment    for      his   employer,   the
    Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), on Pearson’s
    claims of employment discrimination and retaliation.           We affirm.
    I
    A
    The MBTA operates the Boston subway and bus system, and
    employs Pearson, who was hired in 1990 as a “maintainer” and
    promoted in 1994 to his current position of “signal inspector.” In
    this job, he supervises a team of maintainers to ensure that trains
    get proper upkeep and that any problems with service are quickly
    resolved.    Pearson is one of six signal inspectors, who report to
    the   four   maintenance   supervisors:     Russell    Fairhurst,   Ernest
    Morrison, John McCabe, and Jan Hagan.        The supervisors report to
    the Superintendent of the Signal Department, Thomas Cary, who
    reports to the Deputy Director of Signals and Communications, Peter
    Bertozzi, who in turn reports to the Director of Systemwide
    Maintenance and Improvements, John Lewis.          Charles O’Reilly, the
    Senior Director of Infrastructure and Engineering, supervises
    Lewis, and at the end of this protracted chain of command sits
    Daniel Grabauskas, the general manager of the MBTA.             Pearson is
    African-American, as are Fairhurst, Morrison, and Lewis.                The
    others are Caucasian.
    -2-
    Pearson’s employment by the MBTA has been punctuated by
    discord, and he has been disciplined several times for reasons such
    as inattendance, discourtesy, and insubordination.                    The conduct
    giving   rise   to   this    litigation    began     with   a    November    2004
    instruction from Fairhurst to Pearson that his team fix a problem
    at the Arlington Street Station.           Pearson failed to get the job
    done and received a five-day suspension with a “Discipline Slip,”
    informing him that he had “reached the final warning stage of
    [MBTA’s] progressive disciplinary track. . . . [A]ny further
    violation[s] . . . will result in further disciplinary action, the
    termination of your employment.”          J.A. 62.
    Pearson committed another violation on September 12,
    2006, when Hagan instructed him to go with a crew of maintainers to
    Sullivan Square Station to fix malfunctioning track circuits.
    Pearson never reported to Sullivan Square, and the circuits were
    not fixed for three hours.       The next day, Cary requested written
    statements from Hagan and Pearson, and Cary then discussed the
    appropriate     discipline    with   Bertozzi,     Lewis,       and   O’Reilly.
    Although the MBTA’s policies provided that discharge was warranted
    for Pearson’s dereliction in light of his disciplinary history, the
    four decided to recommend only a demotion to allow Pearson to keep
    his job.   On September 21, Cary drafted a memorandum to Bertozzi
    recommending that Pearson be demoted, but before he delivered it,
    he sent it to the MBTA’s labor relations department, under the MBTA
    -3-
    policy to seek labor relations’s approval before imposing any
    discipline.
    Josh Coleman, a labor relations representative, received
    Cary’s letter and on September 29 asked Cary for more information
    about Pearson’s record and the September 12 incident.     During his
    investigation, Coleman learned from a union representative that
    because Pearson was behind on his union dues, he might not be
    eligible to drop-back to maintainer by bumping a junior employee.
    The union representative also indicated that Pearson intended to
    file a grievance, no matter what the discipline was.       With this
    information in mind, the labor relations department concluded that
    termination was proper and recommended it to Cary, as against
    demotion.   At this time, neither Coleman nor his supervisor, Brian
    Donohoe, was aware than Pearson was African-American.     On October
    24, Fairhurst issued Pearson a Discipline Slip, stating that he was
    “hereby suspended for thirty (30) days with a recommendation for
    discharge.”    J.A. 520.
    Two weeks later, Pearson wrote a letter to Senator Edward
    Kennedy, complaining of mistreatment and of on-going racial unrest
    at the MBTA, and the next month, Senator Kennedy wrote to the MBTA
    leadership, referring to Pearson’s allegations. On January 5, 2007
    an investigator from the MBTA’s Office of Diversity and Civil
    Rights met with Pearson and his lawyer, but Pearson declined to
    take part in any investigation when he learned that the focus would
    -4-
    be general racial discrimination at the MBTA, as opposed to his
    termination.
    At some point after his October 24, 2006 suspension,
    Pearson did file a labor grievance concerning his termination,
    which was denied on January 8, 2007.            Bertozzi then sent a memo to
    the MBTA leadership, dated January 18, 2007, formally recommending
    Pearson’s discharge, with copy to the labor relations department,
    which at that point conducts a full, independent review of any
    proposed     termination      and   submits     a   separate      recommendation
    memorandum to the General Manager.             After losing Pearson’s file,
    labor relations eventually concurred with Bertozzi’s recommendation
    in a May 1 memo to Grabauskas, who fired Pearson on May 2.                  Three
    months     later,   Pearson     filed    claims     with    the   Massachusetts
    Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and the Equal Employment
    Opportunity     Commission      (EEOC)        alleging     discrimination     and
    retaliation.
    Following his discharge, Pearson also availed himself of
    arbitration in challenging the denial of his grievance. On October
    22, after a two-day hearing, the arbitrator ruled for Pearson,
    concluding that the MBTA had lacked just cause to terminate him
    because Hagan’s directive that Pearson report to Sullivan Square
    was “nuanced enough to be subject to reasonable misinterpretation.”
    J.A 524.    The arbitrator ordered Pearson’s reinstatement, and the
    MBTA reinstated him to his former position on January 7, 2008, with
    -5-
    full back pay and benefits.          When Pearson returned to work, the
    discord resumed, and he has been disciplined at least three times
    since his reinstatement.
    B
    In October 2008, Pearson filed a complaint against the
    MBTA in the district court, alleging racial discrimination in
    violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, as
    well as unlawful retaliation, in violation of the same provisions.
    He contended that his October 24, 2006 suspension and termination
    as recommended constituted racial discrimination, that his eventual
    termination was retaliation for contacting Senator Kennedy, and
    that various MBTA employees discriminated against him after his
    return to work and retaliated against him for filing charges with
    the   MCAD    and   EEOC.         Thus,       he     alleged     four   violations:
    (1)    discrimination        in     his        suspension         and    discharge;
    (2)   discrimination    in   the    MBTA’s         post-reinstatement     conduct;
    (3) retaliation by termination for his letter to Senator Kennedy;
    and (4) retaliation in the MBTA’s post-reinstatement treatment, in
    response to his filing administrative charges.
    The MBTA moved for summary judgment.              After briefing and
    argument, the magistrate judge recommended that the motion be
    granted on the claim of discriminatory suspension, finding that the
    “record      more   than     adequately            establishes     a    legitimate,
    non-discriminatory reason for the termination,” J.A. 538, and that
    -6-
    Pearson had failed to prove that the MBTA’s reason was pretextual.
    The magistrate also recommended rejection of both retaliation
    claims.       She found no causal link between the termination and
    Pearson’s letter to Senator Kennedy, which was sent after the
    recommendation to fire him, and found that Pearson had failed to
    allege    a    materially          adverse        employment   action        after   his
    reinstatement, causally related to his administrative charges. The
    magistrate made no recommendation on the racial discrimination
    allegations         tied    to     the   conduct     occurring       after    Pearson’s
    reinstatement, understanding that the MBTA had not moved for
    summary judgment on that count.
    The      district          court      adopted     the      magistrate’s
    recommendation in full and granted summary judgment for the MBTA on
    the three claims considered by the magistrate.                        After the MBTA
    moved for summary judgment on the outstanding claim, the district
    court    granted      judgment      on    that,     too,   finding    that    Pearson’s
    allegations do not support an inference of racial discrimination.
    This timely appeal followed.
    II
    In this court, Pearson challenges “only the District
    Court’s      action        [on]    the    termination      itself,     and     not   the
    post-reinstatement conduct.” Appellant’s Br. 2 n.1. Our review is
    accordingly limited to the summary judgment for the MBTA on two of
    the   four    claims:       that    Pearson’s      discharge   constituted       racial
    -7-
    discrimination and unlawful retaliation for writing to Senator
    Kennedy.   We review each de novo,             Henry v. United Bank, 
    686 F.3d 50
    , 54 (1st Cir. 2012), under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) that summary
    judgment is called for when “there is no genuine dispute as to any
    material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
    law.”
    A
    Title     VII   of   the    Civil    Rights   Act   of   1964    is    the
    authority for the claim of discriminatory termination in its
    provision that “[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for
    an employer . . . to discharge any individual . . . because of such
    individual’s race.”        42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).          We review the claim
    under the framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
    Green, 
    411 U.S. 792
     (1973).           See, e.g., Cham v. Station Operators,
    Inc., 
    685 F.3d 87
    , 93-94 (1st Cir. 2012).                      A plaintiff must
    establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Reeves v. Sanderson
    Plumbing   Prods.,    Inc.,     
    530 U.S. 133
    ,   142   (2000),   and    if    he
    succeeds, “the burden of production shifts to the defendant to
    produce evidence ‘that the adverse employment actions were taken
    for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason,’” Cham, 685 F.3d at 94
    (quoting St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 
    509 U.S. 502
    , 507 (1993)
    (internal quotation marks omitted)).              “If the defendant produces
    such evidence, the McDonnell Douglas framework ‘disappear[s]’ and
    the sole remaining issue is ‘discrimination vel non,’” leaving the
    -8-
    plaintiff “an opportunity to show that the reasons offered by the
    defendant were a pretext for discrimination.” Cham, 685 F.3d at 94
    (quoting Reeves, 530 U.S. at 143) (alteration in original).
    We focus only on the final enquiry, for the MBTA offers
    merely one sentence contesting that Pearson has set out a prima
    facie case, Appellee’s Br. 16 n.7 (arguing in the alternative that
    Pearson’s    disciplinary     history   “demonstrates         that   he    was   not
    performing his job at an acceptable level, a necessary element of
    his prima facie case”), and Pearson implicitly acknowledges that
    the   MBTA   has   produced   some   evidence     that    the    discharge       was
    nondiscriminatory, e.g., Appellant’s Br. 18 (arguing that the
    reasons advanced by the MBTA for his discharge were pretextual).
    We therefore go directly to the ultimate question, whether the
    MBTA’s stated reasons for discharge were pretextual, which at the
    summary judgment stage is whether the employee “has raised a
    genuine issue of fact as to whether the termination of [his]
    employment was motivated by . . . discrimination.”               Domínguez-Cruz
    v. Suttle Caribe, Inc., 
    202 F.3d 424
    , 431 (1st Cir. 2000).                        To
    defeat   summary    judgment,    Pearson   must       offer    “some      minimally
    sufficient evidence, direct or indirect, both of pretext and of
    [MBTA’s] discriminatory animus.”           Acevedo-Parrilla v. Novartis
    Ex-Lax, Inc., 
    696 F.3d 128
    , 140 (1st Cir. 2012). “[M]ere questions
    regarding the employer’s business judgment are insufficient to
    raise a triable issue as to pretext.”           Id.
    -9-
    We read the record as showing that Pearson has not shown
    a material dispute of fact as to pretext, and thus side with the
    district court in rejecting the claim that racial discrimination
    motivated his firing.              As the district court found, the MBTA
    offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Pearson’s
    termination: that he had been repeatedly insubordinate and had
    reached the end of the MBTA’s progressive disciplinary sequence.
    As we have often found, insubordination is obviously sufficient to
    support an adverse employment action.                       See Windross v. Barton
    Protective          Servs.,    Inc.,   
    586 F.3d 98
    ,     104    (1st      Cir.   2009)
    (collecting cases).
    Pearson responds with the same contentions the district
    court rejected, describing a series of events that, he argues,
    amounts to a showing that his firing was pretextual: (1) McCabe (a
    maintenance supervisor) and Bertozzi (Deputy Director of Signals
    and     Communications)         treated      him     less    favorably         than   white
    co-workers in imposing discipline with respect to the 2004 and 2006
    incidents;          (2)   Pearson      had     been         active        in    supporting
    African-American employees in asserting their civil rights; (3) the
    MBTA ignored his supervisors’ recommendation that he be demoted,
    not fired; (4) he was left in “employment limbo” for six months
    after    his    recommended       termination;        (5)    he     was    informed     that
    “someone       in    [l]abor    [r]elations”       did      not   like     him;   (6)   the
    arbitrator did not find just cause for his termination; and (7) it
    -10-
    was unclear who within labor relations made the decision to fire
    him.    See Appellant’s Br. 16-21.
    The crux of his claim, therefore, is that a series of
    questionable acts can establish pretext sufficient to support a
    discrimination claim, but an examination of the record evidence
    shows why merely questionable behavior does not get across the line
    to     showing   “minimally   sufficient    evidence”   of   pretext.
    Acevedo-Parrilla, 696 F.3d at 140.         The items on Pearson’s list
    that might give one pause fall short for the reasons stated by the
    district court.      Notably, the white employee alleged to have
    escaped discipline for the 2006 misconduct had not (unlike Pearson)
    disobeyed a direct order from a supervisor.             See J.A. 544.
    Although the 2004 discipline that the MBTA meted out was not
    similarly applied to a white employee, it was imposed on Pearson by
    an African-American supervisor and was not imposed against a
    different African-American employee.        See J.A. 513.    As for the
    arbitrator’s reinstatement decision, it simply means that Pearson
    should not have been fired because Hagan’s directive was ambiguous;
    there is no intimation that the firing had been motivated by racial
    animus.    See J.A. 543-44.
    It is true that the record does not indicate the person
    within labor relations who made the decision to convert Pearson’s
    proposed suspension into a recommended termination, but as the
    district court explained, the supervisors against whom Pearson
    -11-
    alleges     discriminatory        motive       recommended     only    a        demotion;
    moreover, Coleman and Donohoe, who were involved in changing the
    recommendation to a termination, did not know that Pearson was
    African-American when the recommendation was converted.                         Finally,
    the long time that elapsed between Pearson’s misconduct and his
    termination suggests only that the MBTA has a lengthy process for
    such matters (not to mention the loss of his file along the way),
    and Pearson does not argue that the MBTA failed to follow its
    standard drill.     We have reviewed Pearson’s remaining accusations
    and find that they do not create a triable issue regarding pretext.
    The magistrate correctly characterized Pearson’s allegations as
    nothing    more   than    “a    disagreement       with   [MBTA]      regarding      its
    disciplinary policies and rule violations,” J.A. 544, which cannot
    defeat summary judgment, see Medina-Munoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
    Co., 
    896 F.2d 5
    , 8 (1st Cir. 1990) (affirming grant of summary
    judgment    where   the   non-moving        party    offered    only       “conclusory
    allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation”).
    B
    Pearson next faults the district court’s conclusion that
    the MBTA did not retaliate against him for writing to Senator
    Kennedy, which would violate Title VII and Massachusetts Chapter
    151B.   See Appellant’s Br. 25-27.             To prove a claim of retaliation
    under either provision, “a plaintiff must show that (i) she
    undertook    protected         conduct,    (ii)     she   suffered         an    adverse
    -12-
    employment action, and (iii) the two were causally linked.”
    Noviello v. City of Boston, 
    398 F.3d 76
    , 88 (1st Cir. 2005).
    Whether summary judgment was proper here turns only on the last
    element as there is no dispute that writing one’s legislator is
    protected     conduct    and    that     being   terminated   is    an   adverse
    employment action. We have rejected claims on this ground when the
    allegations are “largely conclusory and lacking in the concrete
    documentation necessary to prove the causal link.”              Ramos v. Roche
    Prods., Inc., 
    936 F.2d 43
    , 49 (1st Cir. 1991).
    The district court correctly held that there was no
    causal link between Pearson’s letter and his termination, the
    reason being obvious: MBTA officials recommended firing Pearson
    before   he    wrote    the    letter.      Causation   moves      forward,   not
    backwards, and no protected conduct after an adverse employment
    action can serve as the predicate for a retaliation claim.                    See,
    e.g., Sullivan v. Raytheon Co., 
    262 F.3d 41
    , 49 (1st Cir. 2001)
    (rejecting a retaliation claim under Chapter 151B “[b]ecause [the
    plaintiff’s] protected action — filing a charge of discrimination
    — occurred after the adverse employment action”); Mole v. Univ. of
    Mass., 
    814 N.E.2d 329
    , 340 (Mass. 2004) (“Where, as here, adverse
    employment actions or other problems with an employee predate any
    knowledge that the employee has engaged in protected activity, it
    is not permissible to draw the inference that subsequent adverse
    actions, taken after the employer acquires such knowledge, are
    -13-
    motivated by retaliation.”).     Here, to be sure, the decision to
    terminate had not worked its way to the General Manager, but
    Pearson points to no evidence that this recommendation would have
    been rejected if no one at the higher echelon had known of the
    Kennedy letter.     Pearson does argue that Coleman (in the labor
    relations section) knew of his letter before the day of his
    termination, and that Coleman’s awareness provides the requisite
    showing of cause.    But knowledge alone cannot provide the causal
    link.   “Were the rule otherwise, then a disgruntled employee, no
    matter how poor his performance or how contemptuous his attitude
    toward his supervisors, could effectively inhibit a well-deserved
    discharge    by   merely   filing,   or   threatening   to   file,   a
    discrimination complaint.”     Mesnick v. Gen. Elec. Co., 
    950 F.2d 816
    , 828 (1st Cir. 1991).
    Finally, Pearson argues that a letter written by Coleman
    threatening to fire Pearson for insubordination following his
    reinstatement demonstrates animus that supports an inference that
    Coleman’s prior recommendation was retaliatory. But this is simply
    too attenuated.     More than a year separated these events, and
    Coleman had a legitimate reason for writing the letter: Pearson had
    failed to show up for a mandatory appointment (even though it later
    turned out that Pearson had not been made aware of the meeting).
    Simply put, we hold that Coleman’s post-reinstatement conduct does
    -14-
    not support an inference that Pearson had been fired in retaliation
    for writing to Senator Kennedy the previous year.
    III
    The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    It is so ordered.
    -15-