Redwine v. ABC Coke
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Karon O Bowdre on 8/9/12. Associated Cases: 2:11-cv-00133-KOB, 2:11-cv-00134-KOB(SAC )
2012 Aug-09 AM 11:32
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ABC COKE, a division of
Drummond Company, Inc.,
ABC COKE, a division of Drummond
This matter comes before the court on Defendant ABC Coke’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (doc. 24). The parties fully briefed the motion and the court held a hearing on the
motion on Monday, August 6, 2012. For the reasons stated on the record, the court finds that the
Plaintiffs Paul Redwine and Michael Weston have failed to establish a prima facie case of racial
discrimination because they failed to show a similarly situated comparator who was nearly
identical in quality of conduct. Even had they done so, ABC Coke offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Redwine and Weston—Locklear’s loss of confidence in
their ability to respond to an emergency situation and, in Redwine’s case, Redwine’s failure to
acknowledge his mistakes on the night of the explosion at the Beckers battery. Finally, the court
found that Weston was judicially estopped from asserting his Title VII claims because he failed
to list his EEOC Charge on his amended schedule of assets when he converted his bankruptcy
petition to a Chapter 7 petition.
Therefore, the court GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment, and ENTERS
JUDGMENT in favor of the Defendant and against Plaintiffs Michael Weston and Paul Redwine
on their single claim of race discrimination under Title VII and § 1981.1 Costs are taxed against
DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2012.
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Although Count One of the Complaint is titled “Race Discrimination and Retaliation,” the Plaintiffs conceded at
the hearing that the inclusion of “Retaliation” in Count One was an error.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?