Ward v. Bechtel Corporation ( 1997 )

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 96-20533
Summary Calendar.
Diana WARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BECHTEL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Jan. 2, 1997.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:
Diana Ward, an engineer and an African-American woman, sued
her former employer, Bechtel Corporation, alleging workplace
discrimination based on her sex, race, and national origin in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. She also asserted state law claims of
intentional infliction of emotional distress, premises liability,
and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. Based upon our
review of the briefs, the applicable law, and relevant portions of
the record, we hold that the district court properly granted
summary judgment in favor of Bechtel on all counts.
Facts
In June 1991, Bechtel assigned Ward to a supervisory position
on an engineering project. One of the engineers supervised by Ward
was Mohan Manghnani. According to Ward's evidence, Manghnani was
a difficult employee from the outset, which one of Ward's
1
supervisors attributed to Manghnani's reluctance to being
supervised by an African-American woman. Ward claimed that
Manghnani's behavior became more openly hostile after she refused
to recommend him for a promotion in January 1992. Manghnani's
hostility erupted in several discrete incidents between June 1992
and April 1993 in which he allegedly threatened Ward and, on one
occasion, elbowed her in the forearm. Even after Bechtel, at
Ward's request, reassigned Manghnani to a different engineering
project and building, he allegedly persisted in stating that he
would "kick [Ward's] ass" and "get" her. Concerned for her safety
and dissatisfied with Bechtel's response to her concerns, Ward
submitted her resignation on April 29, 1993.
Standard of Review and Summary Judgment Standard
We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de
novo, applying the standard set out in Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Rule
56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment against a party who
has failed to make an evidentiary showing sufficient to establish
an essential element of her case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Frazier v.
Garrison Indep. Sch. Dist., 980 F.2d 1514, 1520 (5th Cir.1993).
Summary judgment is not precluded in this case merely because
appellant seeks an opportunity to prove that Bechtel was motivated
by discriminatory intent. See International Shortstop, Inc. v.
Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied,
502 U.S. 1059, 112 S. Ct. 936, 117 L. Ed. 2d 107 (1992).
Title VII
2
Ward's complaint alleged that Bechtel unlawfully discriminated
against her on the basis of her sex, race, and national origin.
She also argues that she was placed in a hostile work environment
on the basis of her sex and race, and that Bechtel failed to
respond adequately to her complaints about this harassment.
The Supreme Court outlined the elements of a Title VII
discrimination claim in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.
792, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). In the
present context, McDonnell Douglas requires Ward to establish, as
her prima facie case, that (1) she belongs to a protected group,
i.e., African-American women; (2) that she was qualified for her
position; (3) that she was dismissed or suffered an adverse
employment action; and (4) that Bechtel sought to replace her with
a similarly qualified white man. See id. at 802 n. 13, 93 S. Ct. at
1824 n. 13; see also LaPierre v. Benson Nissan, Inc., 86 F.3d 444,
448 (5th Cir.1996).
Ward seeks to satisfy the third element by claiming that she
was constructively discharged from Bechtel. Constructive discharge
can form the basis of a Title VII claim. Guthrie v. Tifco Indus.,
941 F.2d 374, 377 (5th Cir.1991). "To show constructive discharge,
an employee must offer evidence that the employer made the
employee's working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable
employee would feel compelled to resign." Barrow v. New Orleans
S.S. Ass'n, 10 F.3d 292, 297 (5th Cir.1994). Ward failed to adduce
evidence that her decision to resign was reasonable based on any of
the factors identified in Barrow. She did not, for example,
3
demonstrate that Bechtel demoted her, cut her salary, or reassigned
her to remedial or degrading work, any of which would tend to
support a finding of constructive discharge. Barrow, 10 F.3d at
297. The list of factors in Barrow is non-exclusive, but Ward has
failed to present other evidence sufficient to show that Bechtel
placed her in an intolerable work environment. Compare Guthrie,
941 F.2d at 377 (assuming arguendo that constructive discharge was
established where employer demoted plaintiff, cut his pay 40
percent, and assigned him to work for a less experienced colleague
17 years his junior). We agree with the district court that a
reasonable person in Ward's position would not have felt compelled
to resign.1
The district court also found that appellant's hostile work
environment claim failed the test of summary judgment. See Harris
v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 114 S. Ct. 367, 126 L. Ed. 2d
295 (1993). Even assuming arguendo that Ward was placed in such an
environment, she cannot prevail unless she additionally shows that
Bechtel failed to take "prompt and appropriate remedial action in
response" to her allegations. See Carmon v. Lubrizol Corp., 17
F.3d 791 (5th Cir.1994). Here, the summary judgment evidence
conclusively establishes that Bechtel investigated Ward's
allegations against Manghnani, that Manghnani was disciplined and
1
Appellant's failure to raise a fact question as to whether
she suffered an adverse employment action is dispositive of her
Title VII discrimination claim. Accordingly, we need not address
the district court's alternative holding that appellant failed to
adduce evidence that any adverse action she might have suffered was
motivated by discriminatory animus on the part of Bechtel.
4
threatened with termination if his abusive conduct persisted, that
he was removed from appellant's engineering project and the
building in which she worked, and that he was instructed to have no
contact with her. The company also offered appellant paid time
off, medical leave, participation in an employee assistance
program, and an escort to and from her car each workday. Finally,
upon receiving Ward's letter of resignation, Bechtel, in an effort
to retain her services, postponed action on her resignation while
hiring two workplace violence experts to conduct a risk assessment
of Manghnani. Ward refused to cooperate in the experts' study. On
this record, we agree with the district court that appellant failed
to raise a genuine issue as to whether Bechtel failed to respond
adequately to her complaints. Compare Hirras v. National R.R.
Passenger Corp., 95 F.3d 396, 400 (5th Cir.1996) (affirming summary
judgment in employer's favor on Title VII claim where employer
"took [the employee's] complaints seriously and conducted a prompt
and thorough investigation").
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
The district court also granted summary judgment on Ward's
claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, a tort
recognized by the Texas Supreme Court in Twyman v. Twyman, 855
S.W.2d 619, 621 (Tex.1993) (adopting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS
§ 46 (1965)). The district court held that there was no genuine
issue as to whether Bechtel's conduct was "extreme and outrageous,"
5
as required to establish liability.2 We again agree with the
district court. As we have explained:
Conduct is outrageous, for purposes of an intentional
infliction of emotional distress claim, if it surpasses all
bounds of decency, such that it is utterly intolerable in a
civilized community.... Liability does not extend to mere
insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, or petty
oppressions.
Weller v. Citation Oil & Gas Corp., 84 F.3d 191, 195 (5th Cir.1996)
(citing Ugalde v. W.A. McKenzie Asphalt Co., 990 F.2d 239, 243 (5th
Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks omitted)), petition for cert.
filed, 65 USLW 3205 (Sept. 3, 1996).
Without suggesting that appellant's concerns regarding
Manghnani were "petty," we hold that she has failed to raise a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether Bechtel's conduct was
extreme and outrageous. Appellant raises a related argument that
Bechtel "ratified" Manghnani's conduct, but this claim is
unpersuasive in light of the company's decisive actions to remove
Manghnani from her work site and to prevent him from harassing her.
Cf. Prunty v. Arkansas Freightways, Inc., 16 F.3d 649, 655 (5th
Cir.1994) (employee's sexual harassment of plaintiff was ratified
where supervisor "took no action to remedy the situation ...").3
Negligence Claims
2
To establish intentional infliction of emotional distress,
the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant acted intentionally
or recklessly, (2) the defendant's conduct was extreme and
outrageous, (3) the defendant's actions caused the plaintiff
emotional distress, and (4) the emotional distress suffered by the
plaintiff was severe. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d at 621.
3
Because we find no extreme and outrageous conduct on
Bechtel's part, we need not address the district court's conclusion
that Ward's emotional distress was not "severe."
6
Finally, the district court correctly held that appellant's
remaining state tort claims, sounding in negligence, were preempted
by the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. TEX.LAB.CODE ANN. § 408.001
(Vernon 1996). The Act provides the exclusive remedy for injuries
sustained by an employee in the course of his employment as a
result of his employer's negligence. Dickson v. Silva, 880 S.W.2d
785 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied ). See also
Ajaz v. Continental Airlines, 156 F.R.D. 145, 148-49
(S.D.Tex.1994).4 Appellant, however, contends that her negligence
claims are not pre-empted because her psychological injuries were
not sustained in the course of her employment. She reasons that
Manghnani's conduct was personal in nature, and was motivated by
his bias against women and African-Americans. However, there is no
question that appellant based her premises liability and negligent
hiring, supervision, and retention claims on Bechtel's alleged
negligence with respect to her workplace supervision of Manghnani.
This is not a case involving an off-duty altercation between two
employees of the same company. Compare Prescott v. CSPH, Inc., 878
S.W.2d 692 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1994, writ denied ) (employee stabbed
by off-duty co-worker acting for personal reasons could not recover
under T.W.C.A. but was limited to common law causes of action not
barred by the Act). The essence of Ward's case is that she was
harmed, while trying to do her job, by another employee who
4
Section 408.001 took effect Sept. 1, 1993. The previous
version of the statute contained a similar exclusivity provision.
See TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. §§ 8306-83091 (Vernon 1967 & Supp.1985),
cited in Reed Tool Co. v. Copelin, 689 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex.1985)
(internal citations omitted).
7
resisted her authority, and that Bechtel failed to respond
adequately. To the extent that her case is based on Bechtel's
alleged negligence, recovery is foreclosed by the Texas Workers'
Compensation Act.
Appellant failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as
to any of her claims against Bechtel. Accordingly, the summary
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
8