Jeanty v. Precision Pipeline Solutions LLC

Background

Kervin Jeanty sued Precision Pipeline Solutions, LLC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. He alleged that the company retaliated against him because of his race and sex. Earlier in the case, the court dismissed his discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims and allowed his retaliation claims based on his September 2017 termination to proceed.

Jeanty worked as a construction driver during two periods in 2017. The company’s employee handbook required workers to report on time, obtain advance approval for planned absences, and notify supervisors before a shift if they would be absent. It also listed conduct that could lead to discipline or termination.

The company first fired Jeanty on August 8, 2017, asserting that he transported materials too slowly. After discovering a problem with the tarp on his truck, the company reinstated him on August 15. The company later asserted that Jeanty missed four consecutive days, left work early without approval, refused to perform truck maintenance, removed and lost safety-handle pins from construction equipment, and drove with an open truck box and without a spotter despite being told to stop. The company terminated him on September 25, 2017.

Jeanty had reported to a human-resources employee that a coworker scratched himself and then grabbed or tapped Jeanty’s arm. Jeanty also alleged that the coworker made a comment referring to “slave work,” but the opinion states that Jeanty did not report that comment to human resources. The opinion states that Jeanty disputed whether he was absent for four days and attributed earlier transportation delays to a tarp malfunction, but he did not oppose the summary-judgment motion with evidence.

Motion and legal standard

Precision Pipeline moved for summary judgment, which is a decision ending a claim without a trial when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute over an important fact requires a trial and the moving party is legally entitled to judgment. The motion was unopposed. The court had given Jeanty additional time to respond and warned that the motion would be treated as fully submitted if he did not respond. Jeanty neither opposed the motion nor filed his own motion.

The court applied the three-step framework used for retaliation claims under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. First, a plaintiff must show protected activity, the employer’s awareness of that activity, an adverse employment action, and a connection between the activity and the action. If the employer gives a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action, the plaintiff must present enough evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that reason was false and that retaliation was the real reason.

Court’s analysis

The court assumed, without deciding, that Jeanty had produced enough evidence to establish the initial retaliation case. It held, however, that the record did not support a reasonable finding that Precision Pipeline’s stated reasons for firing him were a pretext, meaning a false explanation used to conceal retaliation.

The company submitted evidence of multiple alleged violations of its disciplinary policy, including unexcused absences, leaving early without approval, insubordination, equipment damage, and conduct that endangered Jeanty, coworkers, and passersby. Because Jeanty did not submit evidence contradicting the company’s material facts, the court concluded that he could not prevail on his Title VII or New York State Human Rights Law retaliation claims.

Disposition

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti granted Precision Pipeline’s motion for summary judgment. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the motion and close the case. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Jeanty permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.