Jones v. BNSF Railway Company
Filing
21
OPINION on Dismissal. Jones has not exhausted his administrative remedies for his racial discrimination claims. He has not plausibly pleaded his retaliation claims. His case will be dismissed. Jones will take nothing from the Port Terminal Railroad Association and the BNSF Railway Company. (Signed by Judge Lynn N Hughes) Parties notified. (ghassan, 4)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
versus
Port Terminal Railroad Association,
Defendant.
Keithan Ljones,
Plaintiff,
versus
BNSF Railway Company,
Defendant.
Civil Action H'I5'35
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Keithan E.Jones,
Civil Action H'I5,81
June 11, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk
Opinion on Dismissal
I.
Background.
From
1997
to
Keithan E. Jones worked for the BNSF Railway
2.000,
Company as a switchman. In
2.000,
he got into an argument that prompted a
union investigation. The investigation found that he had violated company rules.
He was fired. In
2.001,
he filed a charge of racial discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. It dismissed the complaint; Jones did
not sue.
In September of
2.0 I
3, Jones applied for a job at the Port Terminal
Railroad Association. InJanuary of 2.014, the Port Terminal told him that it was
not going to offer him a position. On February 6, he filed two complaints of
retaliation with the Commission - one against the Port Terminal and one
against the BNSF Railway.
Jones's theory is that he would have gotten a job at the Port Terminal if
the BNSf Railway had not given him a bad recommendation. He says that the bad
recommendation was because he had filed a charge of discrimination against it.
On September 25,2014, the Commission issued two right-to-sue letters.
2.
Porr Terminal.
In his charge,lones says that the Port Terminal did not hire him because
it was retaliating against him. In his complaint, he says that it was discriminating
against him on the basis of race. Because Jones did not allege racial
discrimination in his charge, he has not exhausted his administrative remedies.
J ones says that the Port Terminal decided not to hire him because the
BNSf Railway told it about his previous charge. He offers nothing beyond this
bare allegation. According to Jones, the hiring manager told him that he would
not be offered a job because of a reference from the BNSf Railway. He does not
know what, if anything, was said between the railroads. A company is free to
decide whom to hire and what to do about an applicant with a negative reference.
Also,lones's complaint does not support an inference that the railroad
told the Port Terminal about the charge. He simply thinks that it must have. He
knows that the BNSf Railway had his operating record on which to base its
recommendation. He has not plausibly pleaded that a switchman position was
available or that the Port Terminal intended to hire him. He does not say that
it had interviewed him, told him that it was seriously considering him, or offered
him a position.
3.
BNSF Railway.
In his complaint, Jones makes it sound like he is suing on the basis of
both his
2014 retaliation
charge and his decade-old racial discrimination charge.
The Commission dismissed the
2001
charge, and Jones did not sue within
90
days of its dismissal.
J ones complains of racial discrimination while he worked at the BNSf
Railway and says that it was the reason he was fired. All of this happened more
than a decade before he filed this lawsuit. Even if he had filed a new charge, it
would have been time-barred.!
Taking both complaints and charges together,lones says that the Port
Terminal was going to hire him until the BNSF Railway told its hiring manager
that he had filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission twelve years
earlier. The only evidence of the BNSF Railway's retaliation is that his not being
hired occurred after he filed his charge more than a decade ago. Jones has not
shown that the BNSF Railway so much as mentioned his previous charge of
discrimination nor has he supported his claim that it still wanted to retaliate
against him twelve years later.
F or its part, the BNSF Railway says that it does not give recommendations.
It has another company confirm that a person worked for it and when but offers
no additional details. The Port Terminal and the BNSF Railway agree that the
Port Terminal did not ask for and the BNSF Railway did not give it Jones's data.
Even if the BNSF Railway had told the Port Terminal thatJones had filed
a charge against it,lones invited the communication. He gave his employment
history, knowing the importance of references. That he filed a charge is a public
record.
4.
Conclusion.
J ones has not exhausted his administrative remedies for his racial
discrimination claims. He has not plausibly pleaded his retaliation claims. His
case will be dismissed.
Keithan E. Jones will take nothing from the Port Terminal Railroad
Association and the BNSF Railway Company.
Signed on June 1.1-,2.018, at Houston, Texas.
~
~'~~F"
Lynn N. Hughes
United States DistrictJudge
'See National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan, 536 u.s.
101 (2.002.).
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?