Taheri v. Evergreen Aviation Ground Logistics Enterprises Inc.

Filing 45

Order on Motion for Summary Judgment

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
TONY TAHERI,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. A04-0106 CV (RRB)

EVERGREEN AVIATION GROUND
LOGISTICS ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Defendant.

I.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Defendant Evergreen Aviation Ground

Logistics Enterprises, Inc. (“Evergreen Aviation”) with a Motion
for Summary Judgment on all of Plaintiff Tony Taheri’s (“Taheri”)
claims.1

Taheri concedes that he cannot prove a case of disparate

treatment or hostile work environment, but argues that nonetheless,
he suffered retaliatory discharge.2

1

Clerk’s Docket No. 34.

2

Clerk’s Docket No. 37.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1
A04-0106 CV (RRB)

Because the Court concludes that Evergreen Aviation had
a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for Taheri’s termination,
Evergreen Aviation’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
II.

FACTS
This lawsuit arises out of Taheri’s termination as an

aircraft mechanic for Evergreen Aviation.

Evergreen Aviation

provides airlines with a variety of services, including equipment
maintenance and repair, cargo and baggage handling, aviation hub
management, warehousing and security, and aircraft fueling and ramp
services.3
Aviation

Taheri worked as an aircraft mechanic for Evergreen
in

Anchorage,

September 13, 2000.4

Alaska

from

August

21,

1997,

through

While Taheri is from Iran, he identified

himself as “White” on his employment applications.5

Further, he

told his co-workers that he was from Greece or Cyprus.6

He does

not remember telling his co-workers anything about his religion.7
The following events are relevant to Taheri’s retaliation
claim and Evergreen Aviation’s defense. On June 2, 1998, a customs
inspector found Taheri and his co-worker asleep on couches in a

3

Clerk’s Docket No. 34 at Ex. 2 at ¶ 3.

4

Id. at Ex. 1 at 10, 67, ex. 8, ex. 25.

5

Id. at Ex. 1 at 54 and ex. 53.

6

Id. at 73.

7

Id. at 73-74.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2
A04-0106 CV (RRB)

customs security zone.8

Because the two men were in a customs

security area for reasons unrelated to their employment, the U.S.
Department of Treasury fined Evergreen Aviation for each man’s
violation.9
On

May

12,

2000,

Taheri

filed

a

complaint

of

discrimination with the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights
(“Commission”).10

Taheri alleged that he was discriminated against

on the basis of race, national origin, religion and age.11

On May

25, 2000, Evergreen Aviation posted a memorandum in the workplace
stating that harassment and discrimination would not be tolerated
and that individuals engaged in such conduct would be terminated.12
On June 5, 2000, the Station Manager found Taheri and
another co-worker sleeping in a van during work hours.13

Taheri

claimed that he was merely resting his eyes, but the Station

8

Id. at exs. 11-13.

9

Id. at exs. 11-15.

10

Clerk’s Docket No. 37 at Ex. D.

11

Id. First, Taheri alleged that Evergreen Aviation was
“aware that my coworkers have subjected me to daily derogatory
comments, names and intimidating, offensive and destructive conduct
because of my age, my religion, my national origin and my race.”
Second, Taheri alleged that lesser qualified Caucasians were
promoted instead of him.
Third, Taheri alleged that Evergreen
Aviation failed to pay him a wage increase that it had given a
Caucasian in the same position.
12

Id. at Ex. C.

13

Clerk’s Docket No. 34 at Ex. 3 at ¶ 4.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3
A04-0106 CV (RRB)

Manager had to knock loudly on the hood three times before the two
men awoke.14

Both men were issued discipline notices for sleeping

on the job.15
On August 17, 2000, Taheri filed a second discrimination
charge with the Commission.16 In this complaint, Taheri stated that
upon filing his first complaint, Evergreen Aviation “has begun to
treat me in a more hostile, intimidating and offensive manner and
subjects me to different terms and conditions of employment.”17

He

alleged that after refusing to withdraw his initial complaint, he
was yelled at, his job duties and work hours were more closely
scrutinized,

and

that

he

“received

more

derogatory

notes,

quarantine stickers on my locker and someone defaced my tools and
put a hangman’s noose in my mailbox,” and that no action was taken
by Evergreen Aviation upon being alerted to these events.18
On September 6, 2000, Taheri and a third co-worker were
observed sleeping during work hours, resulting in their failure to

14

Id.

15

Id. at ¶ 5 and ex. A.

16

Id. at Ex. 1 at exs. 54.

17

Id.

18

Id.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4
A04-0106 CV (RRB)

perform their duties for an Asiana Airlines flight.19 Both men were
suspended for three days.20
On September 13, 2000, a lead mechanic witnessed Taheri
sleeping during work hours.21

Taheri was then terminated by Roger

Kegley, the General Manager of Evergreen Aviation, for repeatedly
sleeping during work hours.22
On October 31, 2000, Taheri amended his second complaint
to the Commission.23

He added the September 6 suspension and the

subsequent termination.24

On March 29, 2001, Taheri filed another

complaint with the Commission because Evergreen Aviation gave a
prospective employer a negative reference about him.25

Taheri

alleged that this was discrimination in retaliation for filing the
previous complaints with the Commission.26

19

Id. at exs. 21-23.

20

Id.

21

Id. at Ex. 2 at 16.

22

Id. at Ex. 1 at ex. 25; Clerk’s Docket No. 40 at Ex. A at

23

Clerk’s Docket No. 34 at ex. 55.

24

Id.

25

Id. at ex. 56.

26

Id.

¶ 9.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 5
A04-0106 CV (RRB)

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that summary judgment should be granted if there is no genuine
dispute as to material facts and if the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.

The moving party has the burden of

showing that there is no genuine dispute as to material fact.27

The

moving party need not present evidence; it needs only point out the
lack of any genuine dispute as to material fact.28

Once the moving

party has met this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth
evidence of specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue
for trial.29

All evidence presented by the non-movant must be

believed for purposes of summary judgment, and all justifiable
inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-movant.30

However, the

nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials, but
must show that there is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed
factual dispute to require a fact-finder to resolve the parties’
differing versions of the truth at trial.31

27

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

28

Id. at 323-25.

29

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49

(1986).
30

Id. at 255.

31

Id. at 248-49.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 6
A04-0106 CV (RRB)

IV.

DISCUSSION
To make out a prima facie case of retaliation under Title

VII, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he engaged in protected
activity; (2) his employer subjected him to an adverse employment
action; and (3) a causal link exists between the protected activity
and the adverse employment action.32

If a plaintiff asserts a prima

facie retaliation claim, the burden shifts to the employer to
“articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse
employment action.”33

If the employer articulates such a reason,

the plaintiff then “bears the ultimate burden of demonstrating that
the reason was merely pretext for a discriminatory motive.”34
Here, Taheri is able to make out a prima facie case of
retaliation.

First, Taheri engaged in protected activity by filing

the complaints with the Commission. While Evergreen Aviation argues
that he did not have a reasonable belief that the challenged
employment

practice

was

discriminatory,

the

Court

disagrees.

Evergreen Aviation concedes that Taheri was subject to the following
derogatory actions, among others, though it labels them as mere
pranks: (1) a quarantine sticker placed on Taheri’s locker; (2) a
fake counseling report with Takeri’s name; (3) a noose place in his
32

Manatt v. Bank of America, NA, 339 F.3d 792, 800 (9th Cir.

2003).
33

Id.

34

Id.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 7
A04-0106 CV (RRB)

mailbox; (4) writings on a board at work stating, “Mohammad, go
home, go back home;” (5) a statement about Taheri possessing a bomb.
While Taheri did not know for certain whether these actions were
because

of

his

race

or

national

origin,

it

would

have

been

reasonable for him to believe that there was discriminatory animus
behind the actions.

Second, he suffered an adverse employment

action upon being terminated.

Third, there is a causal connection

between the protected expression and the adverse action.

Evergreen

Aviation was aware of the complaints filed with the Commission and
the sleeping reprimands were proximately related to the filing of
the complaints.35
The burden now shifts to Evergreen Aviation to state a
legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Taheri’s termination.
Evergreen Aviation’s reason for terminating Taheri concerned his
sleeping during work hours.

At least three times prior to his

termination, Taheri was warned that sleeping on the job would not
be tolerated.

This is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for

the adverse employment action of termination.
As Evergreen Aviation met its burden, the burden now
shifts back to Taheri to prove that this reason was merely pretext
for impermissible retaliation.

Taheri argues that he met this

burden bu submitting two declarations from other employees who both

35

Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 212
F.3d 493, 507 (9th Cir. 2000).
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 8
A04-0106 CV (RRB)

state that sleeping while at work was customary and done my both
employees and supervisors. However, Evergreen Aviation argues that
Taheri presented no evidence that Kegley, the General Manager, was
aware of other employees who slept at work and chose not to punish
those employees.

The Court agrees that neither of the declarations

submitted by Taheri allege that Kegley was aware of any employees
who slept at work and were not punished. In fact, there is evidence
that Kegley did punish other workers besides Taheri for sleeping on
the job.36
Thus, while Taheri has provided sufficient evidence to
support an inference of discrimination, and met his burden on his
prima facie case, that evidence is not sufficient to raise a genuine
issue of material fact regarding the truth of Evergreen Aviation’s
proffered nondiscriminatory reason. The evidence does not show that
Kegley was aware of and did not punish other similarly situated
employees who slept while at work.

However, the evidence does show

that at least one other similarly situated employee was also
punished for sleeping while at work.

Consequently, Taheri has

failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that Evergreen
Aviation’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his termination
was pretextual.

36

On September 6, 2000, Kegley suspended both Taheri and
another employee for sleeping while at work. Clerk’s Docket No. 40
at Ex. A at ¶ 7.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 9
A04-0106 CV (RRB)

V.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment is GRANTED (Clerk’s Docket No. 34).

Further, the

Court does not find oral argument necessary and DENIES Plaintiff’s
motion (Clerk’s Docket No. 41).
ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2006.

/s/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 10
A04-0106 CV (RRB)