Redwine v. ABC Coke

Filing 36

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 )

FILED
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
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PAUL REDWINE,
Plaintiff,
v.

2:11-CV-0133-KOB

ABC COKE, a division of
Drummond Company, Inc.,
Defendant.
CONSOLIDATED WITH
MICHAEL WESTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

2:11-CV-0134-KOB

ABC COKE, a division of Drummond
Company, Inc.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
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

1

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
the Plaintiffs.
DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2012.

____________________________________
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

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.

2