United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
ORDER
CARLTON W. REEVES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
In
2004, CenterPoint Energy, Inc. hired Arthea Grace as a
service technician.[1] In 2015, CenterPoint fired Grace on the
grounds that she violated a company rule by having
“falsified company records.”[2] Grace has
disputed this justification, claiming that CenterPoint
actually fired her because she is a black
woman.[3] Grace brought a Title VII employment
discrimination claim to remedy this alleged
wrong.[4] At the conclusion of discovery,
CenterPoint moved for summary judgment.[5] For the reasons
stated below, that motion is DENIED.
I.
Background
The
analysis for a Title VII discrimination claim is
straightforward. First, Grace must establish a prima
facie case that her firing was motivated by “a
protected factor.”[6] If Grace establishes this case, then
the burden shifts to CenterPoint to produce evidence that
Grace's firing was based on a “legitimate
nondiscriminatory reason.”[7] If CenterPoint meets this
burden, then Grace must prove that this reason was merely
“a pretext for discrimination.”[8]
CenterPoint's
motion for summary judgment makes only one argument: that
Grace has failed to establish her prima facie
case.[9] That motion does not argue that
CenterPoint has produced evidence showing that Grace's
firing was based on a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason.
Nor does it argue that Grace has failed to prove that reason
was a pretext for discrimination. This Court's only duty,
then, is to determine if CenterPoint has shown there is no
“genuine dispute” of any “material
fact” as to whether Grace has established her prima
facie case.[10]
II.
Has Grace Established Her Prima Facie Case?
In a
work-rule violation case like this one, Grace can establish
her prima facie case in two ways.[11] First, Grace
can show that she “did not violate” the relevant
rule.[12] Second, if Grace did violate that rule,
she must show that “similarly situated” employees
not in the protected class “were not punished
similarly.”[13] The discussion below assesses if Grace
has made either showing.
A.
Did Grace Violate The Relevant Rule?
CenterPoint
argues that Grace indisputably violated the relevant rule -
that is, the rule that CenterPoint fired her for breaking. In
its briefings, CenterPoint suggests that Grace was fired for
a host of rule violations, including a “failure to
perform a gas leak investigation” and “expos[ing]
CenterPoint's customer, a pregnant woman, to potential
injury or death.”[14] But CenterPoint's own exhibits
indicate that the company justified Grace's firing on a
single ground: falsifying company documents.[15] Grace
allegedly violated a rule banning such falsification in March
2015 when she submitted documents to CenterPoint to resolve a
report of a gas leak.[16]
Grace
states that she did not falsify any company documents. To
support her claim, she has given highly detailed testimony
regarding what occurred during the relevant leak
investigation. That testimony is as follows.[17]
In the
early hours of March 31, 2015, a CenterPoint dispatcher
tasked Grace with investigating a reported gas leak. Grace
knew the reported leak was located in a gated community, and
asked the dispatcher for the gate code. The dispatcher
informed her that he did not have the code because
CenterPoint's “computers were down” - a claim
verified by internal records submitted to this Court by
CenterPoint.[18] The dispatcher told Grace to drive to
the leak without a gate code, and that he would “see
what [he could] do” to get her past the locked gate.
Upon
arrival at the gated community, Grace spent half an hour
attempting to get beyond the locked gate. During this time,
the dispatcher suggested the leak report was
“old” and “left over” in the system,
and “probably wasn't a leak” because a prior
CenterPoint technician had “probably” turned off
the gas at the residence. The dispatcher “question[ed]
the validity” of the leak report, saying it was
“probably an error.” Grace concluded that there
was not an active leak at the location. She left the entrance
of the gated community an hour after being tasked with the
leak report, and returned home to take care of her sick
children.
CenterPoint
requires technicians to resolve leak reports by entering one
of three options into their computer system: no leak found,
leak found, or leak repaired. About three hours after leaving
the entrance to the gated community, [19] Grace entered
“no leak found” into CenterPoint's computer
system, along with the notation that she “didn't
have any access” to the location of the reported leak.
CenterPoint's own exhibits verify that Grace resolved the
leak report by entering “NLF [no leak found] . . .
gated community . . . no access” into their computer
system.[20]
CenterPoint
does not dispute Grace's story. Instead, they argue that
Grace's entry amounts to falsifying a company document.
This argument assumes that CenterPoint had a rule that
technicians could enter “no leak found” only
under certain circumstances, and that such circumstances were
not present when Grace her entry.
This
assumption finds no support in the record. Perhaps
CenterPoint had a rule that “no leak found” could
be entered only after physically examining a gas line,
something Grace failed to do. But no evidence has been
submitted that indicates what, if any, rules were in place in
March 2015 regarding the entry of “no leak
found.” The record's silence on the existence of
any rule requires this Court to assume that there was
no rule about when “no leak found” could
be entered.
On this
assumption, Grace may not have lied when she made her entry
into CenterPoint's computer system. This conclusion is
not changed by Grace's subsequent statement, when
confronted by management, that she “kind of dropped the
ball” by failing to turn off the gas line upstream of
the site of the reported leak.[21] This statement may be an
admission that Grace violated a company policy dictating how
technicians must act when they cannot access the site of a
reported leak.[22] It is not, however, an admission that
that she violated CenterPoint's ban on falsifying company
documents. This is because Grace's entry did not include
a claim that she followed every company policy in responding
to the leak. Instead, her entry appears to be an accurate
statement of what happened: she did not find a leak because
she could not access the reported leak location. Given all
this, there is a genuine dispute as to whether Grace
established her prima facie case by showing that she
did not violate the rule against falsifying company
documents.
B.
Were Male Employees Similarly Situated To Grace Not
Fired?
Assuming
Grace did violate CenterPoint's ban on falsifying company
documents, she still may establish her prima facie
case by showing that one or more “similarly
situated” employees outside the protected class
“were not punished similarly.”[23] To do so,
Grace must show that such employees (1) “held the same
job or responsibilities, ” (2) “shared the same
supervisor or had their employment status determined by the
same person, ” (3) had “essentially comparable
violation histories, ” and (4) had “nearly
identical” rule violations that led to different
punishments.[24]
CenterPoint
argues that Grace cannot make these showings because she has
provided “no evidence CenterPoint treated any male,
non-African American employee more favorably under
substantially similar circumstances.”[25] CenterPoint
misstates Grace's burden. In alleging both race and
gender discrimination, Grace seeks the protection Title VII
gives to three distinct classes of employees: black people,
women, and black women.[26] To obtain that protection, she need
only present evidence that CenterPoint treated her
differently from employees who were outside at least one of
these classes, not two or more of them.
Here,
Grace has presented evidence that CenterPoint discriminated
against her because she was a woman. She has not, however,
presented any evidence that CenterPoint discriminated against
her because she was black or because she was a black
woman.[27] The analysis below is limited
accordingly, and will examine how CenterPoint treated
“similarly situated” male technicians. That
analysis is divided into four parts, each discussing whether
Grace has satisfied a particular prong of the
“similarly situated” test.
1.
Did The Male Employees Have The Same Job As Grace?
The
first prong requires that Grace show that “similarly
situated” male employees “held the same job or
responsibilities.”[28] Grace has testified that two
“similarly situated” employees - Lance Childers
and Gelston McCornell - were, like her, CenterPoint
technicians.[29] This testimony is undisputed, and thus
satisfies the first prong.
2.
Did The Male Employees And Grace Share The Same
Supervisor?
The
second prong requires that Grace show that she and the male
employees “shared the same supervisor or had their
employment status determined by the same
person.”[30] Grace testified that Mr. Childers and
Mr. McCornell were, like herself, supervised by CenterPoint
Supervisor Allen Smith.[31] This testimony is undisputed,
[32]
and therefore satisfies the second prong.
3.
Did The Male Employees And Grace Share Essentially ...