UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF …

Carter v. Courtesy Automotive Group

Doc. 81

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

BRADLEY CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

Case No: 8:13-cv-143-T-30TBM

FLORIDA AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES LLC,

Defendant.

ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 65) ("Plaintiff's Motion"), Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Incorporated Memorandum of Law and Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 71) ("Defendant's Motion"), and Plaintiff's Supplement to Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 73) ("Plaintiff's Supplement"). The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff's Motion, Defendant's Motion, Plaintiff's Supplement, record evidence, and being otherwise advised of the premises, concludes that Plaintiff's Motion should be denied and Defendant's Motion should be granted.

BACKGROUND In this employment action, Plaintiff Bradley Carter, proceeding pro se, brings a lawsuit against his former employer, Defendant Florida Automotive Services LLC, ("FAS"). FAS operates car dealerships throughout Florida, including Courtesy Toyota of Brandon ("Courtesy").

Dockets.

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint alleges four counts against Defendant: (1) race

discrimination under 42 U.S.C. ? 1981 ("Section 1981"); (2) race discrimination under the

Florida Civil Rights Act ("FCRA"); (3) national origin discrimination under the FCRA;

and (4) retaliation under Section 1981 and the FCRA. Plaintiff identifies himself as a

black male individual of American origin. Plaintiff's allegations relate primarily to

perceived discriminatory employment practices by Defendant, including failure to promote

Plaintiff to Finance Manager, termination of Plaintiff, hostile work environment, and

retaliation.

Plaintiff began his employment at Courtesy on April 21, 2011, after applying and

interviewing for a Sales Consultant position. As a Sales Consultant, Plaintiff's duties

included selling cars and prospecting to sell cars. Sales Manager Keith Miller acted as

Plaintiff's direct manager.

When Plaintiff began his employment at Courtesy, he received an Employee

Handbook that contained Courtesy's policies regarding absenteeism, work schedules, and

promotions, among other things. Regarding absenteeism, the Employee Handbook

stated:

If you are going to be absent from work for any reason, you must personally notify your manager as far in advance as possible. Some situations may arise in which prior notice cannot be given. In those cases, we expect you to notify your manager as soon as possible. PLEASE NOTE: Leaving a message with the receptionist or with a coworker, voice mail, or text message does not qualify as notifying your manager. You must personally contact your manager or manager on duty each day you are going to be absent. When absence is due to illness, we reserve the right to require appropriate medical documentation.

The Employee Handbook also contained Courtesy's policy on work schedules,

2

which stated that "[a]ny changes made to your schedule must be approved by your

manager." The work schedule policy also stated in bold font:

Violation of any of the stated handbook policies may lead to progressive discipline, up to and including termination. Although this handbook is a guide obviously this list is not all inclusive and there may be other circumstance [sic] for which employees may be disciplined, up to and including termination of employment.

The Employee Handbook also contained a statement regarding Courtesy's policy

regarding promotions:

It is our policy to promote from within wherever possible. However, because we often have to fill key positions quickly, we cannot check with each qualified employee to see if he or she is interested in being considered for each opening. Therefore, if you are interested in a promotion to another position, please discuss it with your Department Manager. If you wish to be considered for a specific opening, please let your manager know with a brief memo. If you feel that you were not given fair consideration for a specific position, please discuss your concerns with the General Manager or Human Resources.

On April 21, 2011, Plaintiff signed a document acknowledging receipt of the

Employee Handbook, stating that he understood he was responsible for reading the booklet

in its entirety and being familiar with its content, and agreeing to accept and abide by the

company policies and rules and regulations.

During the course of Plaintiff's employment, Sales Manager Jeremey Dodson

occasionally commented on Plaintiff's manner of dress and vocabulary. Sales Manager

Rollin Seeley reprimanded Plaintiff in front of customers and asked Plaintiff to serve as an

example for other employees. Race was not directly mentioned during any of these

incidents and no other FAS employees at issue in this case ever mentioned race to

3

Plaintiff.1 During the summer of 2011, Plaintiff contacted Human Resource Manager Jan

Handley to express that he was interested in moving into a Finance Manager position. At the time there were no open Finance Manager positions in any of the FAS dealerships, including Courtesy. Several months later, on or about September 15, 2011, Plaintiff submitted an application for a Finance Manager position at FAS's Fort Pierce dealership. Plaintiff did not apply for or express interest in any other positions during his employment with Defendant.

In or around August 2011, a new position was created at Courtesy for a Delivery Coordinator. Sally Buck, a Caucasian Sales Consultant, was appointed to the position and began working as a Delivery Coordinator on September 1, 2011. Plaintiff continued working as a Sales Consultant and did not express interest in a Delivery Coordinator position either before or after Buck was appointed to the position.

On Wednesday, November 16, 2011, Plaintiff took the day off and was not scheduled to work. Despite this, Plaintiff went into work to help a customer. Plaintiff was scheduled to work the following day, Thursday, November 17, 2011. On Thursday, November 17, 2011, Plaintiff did not go into work. Plaintiff cannot specifically recall whether he contacted either Dodson or Seeley regarding his absence on November 17, 2011, however he believes he did call either Dodson or Seeley. Plaintiff returned to work

1 Plaintiff's testimony describes an isolated incident while "slap boxing" with Seeley, in which Seeley allegedly stated "[w]ell, that's what you black guys do, you know, you box." Carter Dep. 250:6-17. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, this stray comment is not actionable under the statutes cited by Plaintiff.

4

on Friday, November 18, 2011. While at work, Plaintiff engaged in a conversation with Seeley during which, Seeley asked Plaintiff where he was on November 17, 2011. Plaintiff responded "I took the day off ? I took the day off because I had worked Wednesday." Seeley informed Plaintiff that a "no call no show" was a terminable offense. Plaintiff responded "[y]ou guys are going to do what you're going to do" and "this is ridiculous." Plaintiff was terminated thereafter.

In January 2012, a Finance Manager at Courtesy left his position, creating an opening for a Finance Manager at Courtesy. Alex Ertle, a Caucasian employee in the Manager In Training program at Courtesy, was promoted to Finance Manager and assumed the position in February 2012.

Both Plaintiff and Defendant now move for summary judgment. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Motions for summary judgment should be granted only when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The existence of some factual disputes between the litigants will not defeat an otherwise properly supported summary judgment motion; "the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (emphasis in original). The substantive law applicable to the claimed causes of action will identify which facts are material. Id. Throughout this analysis, the court must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draw all

5

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download