Dennis v. The Hershey Company et al

Filing 44

ORDER granting 38 Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; Dennis' claims for racial discrimination, retaliation, and disparate treatment are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

AL DENNIS,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

CASE NO. C13-5131 RBL
ORDER GRANTING HERSHEY’S
MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
THE HERSHEY COMPANY,

14

[DKT. #38, #42, AND #43]

Defendant.

15
16

This matter is before the Court on Defendant The Hershey Company’s Motion to dismiss

17

Plaintiff Alphonso Dennis’ claims of discrimination, constructive discharge, and disparate

18

treatment. (Dkt. #38.)

19

Dennis worked at Hershey’s from October 2003 to December 2010. In July 2013, Dennis
20

filed this lawsuit alleging several claims of racial discrimination under federal and state law.
21
22

Hershey’s argued for the dismissal of the race discrimination, retaliation, and disparate treatment

23

claims as time-barred. Dennis contends that his claims are not time-barred because Hershey’s

24

repeated discrimination qualified as continuing violations that receive extended limitation

25

periods. Dennis has failed, however, to present any actual evidence to support his allegations of

26

Hershey’s discrimination. Therefore, Hershey’s Motion is GRANTED.

27
28
ORDER - 1

1
2

I.

BACKGROUND

Dennis worked for Hershey’s from October 2003 until December 2010. He alleges that

3

on several occasions his supervisors, including Defendants Pell, Smuda, Stoffel, and West,
4

engaged in, or condoned, racial discrimination. Dennis, who is black, alleges that Defendants
5
6

twice requested him to fire or deny a promotion to a racial minority employee so that Defendants

7

could avoid racial discrimination charges. Dennis also alleges that on multiple occasions,

8

Defendants promoted employees with less managerial experience and qualifications to positions

9

that he applied for. He further describes instances where Defendants publicly harassed him,

10

including an incident when Smuda loudly called him racially derogatory names. He claims that

11

he reported the discrimination to Hershey’s human resources personnel but no corrective action
12

was taken.
13
14

Dennis did not return to work after an extended medical leave. He was constructively

15

discharged in December 2010. He filed charges with the Equal Opportunity Employment

16

Commission (“EEOC”) in March and June 2011, and filed this lawsuit in 2013.

17

II.

18

DISCUSSION

Hershey’s argues that Dennis’ claims of race discrimination, retaliation and disparate

19

treatment should be dismissed because his failure to promote claim is barred by the statue of
20
21

limitations. Hershey further claims that Dennis failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

22

Dennis countered that the failure to promote claim is only one incidence in a series of continuing

23

violations, and other related violations fall within the applicable time period. However, Dennis

24

did not offer any evidence that he was actually discriminated against, let alone evidence of

25

repeated discrimination that ended within the statute of limitations.

26
27
28
ORDER - 2

1

Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to

2

the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact which would preclude summary

3

judgment as a matter of law. Once the moving party has satisfied its burden, it is entitled to
4

summary judgment if the non-moving party fails to present, by affidavits, depositions, answers to
5
6

interrogatories, or admissions on file, “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for

7

trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). “The mere existence of a scintilla of

8

evidence in support of the non-moving party’s position is not sufficient.” Triton Energy Corp. v.

9

Square D Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995). Factual disputes whose resolution would not

10

affect the outcome of the suit are irrelevant to the consideration of a motion for summary

11

judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In other words,
12

“summary judgment should be granted where the nonmoving party fails to offer evidence from
13
14

which a reasonable [fact finder] could return a [decision] in its favor.” Triton Energy, 68 F.3d at

15

1220. Nonmoving parties must submit the proper evidentiary materials, beyond the mere

16

pleadings, to oppose summary judgment. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324.

17
18

Dennis failed to offer any declarations, exhibits or other evidence in support his
allegations. He merely filed an Amended Complaint and Response to Hershey’s Motion

19

containing a series of allegations. Although the allegations detail a lengthy period of overt,
20
21

blatant and hostile discrimination, allegations without evidentiary support cannot defeat

22

summary judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (noting that the nonmoving party cannot survive a

23

summary judgment motion by “the mere pleadings themselves.”)

24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 3

1
2
3

Hershey’s Motion is therefore GRANTED, and Dennis’ claims for racial discrimination,
retaliation, and disparate treatment are dismissed with prejudice.
Dated this 31st day of January, 2014.

4
5
6
7

A
RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 4