Dediol v. Best Chevrolet, Inc.

     Case: 10-30767    Document: 00511598916         Page: 1     Date Filed: 09/12/2011




            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                                           FILED
                                                                       September 12, 2011

                                      No. 10-30767                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk

MILAN DEDIOL

                                                  Plaintiff - Appellant
v.

BEST CHEVROLET, INCORPORATED;
DONALD CLAY

                                                  Defendants - Appellees



                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of Louisiana




Before SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.1
CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge:
        Plaintiff-Appellant Milan Dediol (“Dediol”) appeals the district court’s
grant of summary judgment for his former employer, Defendant-Appellee Best
Chevrolet, Incorporated (“Best Chevrolet”), on his claims of hostile work
environment and for constructive discharge. Because we find genuine issues of
material fact, we REVERSE AND REMAND.



        1
         This case is being decided by quorum due to the death of Judge William L. Garwood on
July 14, 2011. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
   Case: 10-30767     Document: 00511598916    Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/12/2011



                                    No. 10-30767

                                         I.
      Dediol was employed at Best Chevrolet from June 1, 2007, until August
30, 2007. During his tenure, he worked directly under Donald Clay (“Clay”),
Best Chevrolet’s Used Car Sales Manager. Dediol was 65 years old during his
employment with Best Chevrolet, and he was also a practicing born-again
Christian. Dediol alleges that, on July 3, 2007, friction surfaced between him
and Clay when he requested permission to take off from work for the next
morning—July 4, 2007—to volunteer at a church event.            Dediol received
permission from Clay’s assistant manager, Tommy Melady (“Melady”), but Clay
overruled Melady in derogatory terms. Dediol alleges that Clay told him, “You
old mother******, you are not going over there tomorrow” and “if you go over
there, [I’ll] fire your f*****g ass.”
      Dediol claims that after his request to take off from work for the morning
of July 4th, Clay never again referred to him by his given name, instead calling
him names like “old mother******,” “old man,” and “pops.” Clay would employ
these terms for Dediol up to a half-dozen times a day from on or around July 3,
2007, until the end of his employment. Dediol also claims that “[Clay] stole a
couple of deals from me[,]” and directed them towards younger salespersons.
      According to Dediol, Clay also began to make comments related to Dediol’s
religion. Examples of these comments include “go to your God and [God] would
save your job;” “God would not put food on your plate;” and “[G]o to your f****ng
God and see if he can save your job.”         Clay disparaged Dediol’s religion
approximately twelve times over the two months leading up to Clay’s departure
from Best Chevrolet. At one point, Clay instructed Dediol to go out to the lot to
make sales by saying, “Get your ass out on the floor.” Dediol responded to this
instruction by stating he was busy reading the Bible. To this, Clay responded
“Get outside and catch a customer. I don’t have anybody in the lot. Go get
outside.”

                                         2
   Case: 10-30767   Document: 00511598916     Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/12/2011



                                 No. 10-30767

      Clay also allegedly provoked fights with Dediol. On many occasions, there
were incidents of physical intimidation and/or violence between Clay and Dediol.
According to Dediol, Clay would threaten him in a variety of ways, including
threats that Clay was going to “kick [Dediol’s] ass.” On one occasion, Clay took
off his shirt, and stated to Dediol, “You don’t know who you are talking to. See
these scars. I was shot and was in jail.”
      Much of the complained-of conduct occurred in front of Melady. According
to Dediol, by the end of July 2007, he requested permission from the acting
General Manager (and New Car Manager), John Oliver (“Oliver”), to move to the
New Car Department. To wit, Dediol also repeated the offending language in
front of Oliver in the days leading up to, and when he made his request to
change departments. Dediol avers that his request was precipitated by Clay’s
conduct. This request was preliminarily approved by Melady. Yet, when Clay
learned of Dediol’s request, Clay denied Dediol’s transfer and stated, “Get your
old f*****g ass over here. You are not going to work with new cars.”
      Tensions escalated and reached a climax at an office meeting on August
29, 2007. During an increasingly volatile exchange, Clay proclaimed, “I am
going to beat the ‘F’ out of you,” and “charged” toward Dediol in the presence of
nine to ten employees. Dediol continued working the balance of that day and the
next. Allegedly, the next day, Dediol grew tired of his employment at Best
Chevrolet and working under Clay. In a subsequent meeting with managers,
Dediol stated, “I cannot work under these conditions—you are good people, but
I cannot work under these conditions. It’s getting too much for me.” Dediol
stopped coming to work after August 30, 2007, after which he was terminated
for abandoning his job. Dediol filed a complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and he received his Right-To-Sue letter from
the EEOC on July 8, 2008.



                                       3
   Case: 10-30767    Document: 00511598916      Page: 4    Date Filed: 09/12/2011



                                  No. 10-30767

      On August 22, 2008, Dediol filed suit in the Eastern District of Louisiana
alleging the following claims: hostile work environment based on age, religion
harassment and constructive discharge, and state law claims of assault,
stemming from the August 29, 2007 incident. Best Chevrolet and Clay filed a
motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted on July 20, 2010.
Dediol timely appealed.
                                        II.
                                        A.
      Summary judgment is appropriate where, considering all the allegations
in the pleadings, depositions, admissions, answers to interrogatories, and
affidavits, and drawing inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). The moving party has the
burden of demonstrating that there are no genuine issues of material fact in
dispute. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the record, taken
as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party,
then there is no genuine issue for trial. Steadman v. Texas Rangers, 179 F.3d
360, 366 (5th Cir. 1999). This court reviews the grant of summary judgment de
novo. Floyd v. Amite Cnty. Sch. Dist., 581 F.3d 244, 247 (5th Cir. 2009). We
apply the same legal standards that the district court applied to determine
whether summary judgment was appropriate. Lamar Adver. Co. v. Cont’l Cas.
Co., 396 F.3d 654, 659 (5th Cir. 2005).
                                        B.
                                          1.
      Title VII makes it “an unlawful employment practice for an employer to
discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color,
religion, sex, [age] or national origin.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e–2(a)(1). The phrase

                                          4
   Case: 10-30767   Document: 00511598916      Page: 5   Date Filed: 09/12/2011



                                 No. 10-30767

“terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” includes requiring people to
work in a discriminatorily hostile or abusive environment. Harris v. Forklift
Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). For conduct to be actionable, it needs to be
sufficiently “severe or pervasive.” Harvill v. Westward Comms., LLC, 433 F.3d
428, 434–35 (5th Cir. 2005) (discussing Title VII discrimination in the sexual
harassment context).     Title VII has long been a vehicle by which employees
may remedy discrimination they believe creates a hostile work environment.
Rogers v. EEOC, 454 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1971). In Rogers, this court was the first
to recognize Title VII as a cause of action available to address a hostile work
environment. Id. There, we considered an employee of Spanish origin who
sought to address the employer’s “practice of creating a working environment
heavily charged with ethnic . . . discrimination.” Id. at 238.
      We have never before held that Title VII can be extended to address a
claim for hostile work environment based on age but have considered the
contention on two prior occasions. In Mitchell v. Snow, we considered the claim
of an employee of the United States Department of the Treasury. 326 F. App’x
852, 854 (5th Cir. 2009). Following a yearly job-performance review, Mitchell
brought suit claiming, inter alia, that her performance review amounted to
discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(“ADEA”). In Mitchell, we affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment
in favor of the Treasury on the grounds that Mitchell had not satisfied her
burden of production. We did not reach the question of whether a claim for
hostile work environment under the ADEA was viable in this circuit.
      This was also our posture in McNealy v. Emerson Elec. Co., 121 F. App’x
29, 34 n.1 (5th Cir. 2005). In McNealy, we affirmed a district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of an employer and rejected all of plaintiff
McNealy’s claims. Id. There, too, we assumed arguendo the existence of a
hostile work environment claim under the framework of the ADEA. Id. In both

                                        5
   Case: 10-30767    Document: 00511598916      Page: 6   Date Filed: 09/12/2011



                                  No. 10-30767

Mitchell and McNealy, we considered a plaintiff’s age-based hostile work
environment claim and affirmed the summary judgment of the district court in
favor of the employer, without ever expressly adopting a cause of action for
hostile work environment based on the ADEA.
      At least one sister circuit has explicitly applied Title VII to a hostile work
environment cause of action under the ADEA. Crawford v. Medina General
Hosp., 96 F.3d 830, 834–835 (6th Cir. 1996). Moreover, two other circuits have
considered claims of age discrimination in a manner similar to our disposition
in Mitchell and McNealy. See Sischo-Nownejad v. Merced Cmty. Coll. Dis., 934
F.2d 1104, 1109 (9tb Cir. 1991); Young v. Will Cty. Dep’t of Pub. Aid, 882 F.2d
290, 294 (7th Cir. 1989).
      In Crawford, the Sixth Circuit held that a claim for hostile work
environment is cognizable under the ADEA. 96 F.3d at 835. The Crawford
Court reasoned that the ADEA and Title VII share common substantive features
and also a common purpose: “the elimination of discrimination in the
workplace.” Id. at 834. The Sixth Circuit explained its decision this way: “the
broad application of the hostile-environment doctrine in the Title VII context;
the general similarity of purpose shared by Title VII and the ADEA; and the fact
that the Title VII rationale for the doctrine is of equal force, all counsel” the
result that a claim for hostile work environment based on age is recognized
under Title VII. Id. We adopt the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning here.
      We now hold that a plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim based on
age discrimination under the ADEA may be advanced in this court. A plaintiff
advances such a claim by establishing that (1) he was over the age of 40; (2) the
employee was subjected to harassment, either through words or actions, based
on age; (3) the nature of the harassment was such that it created an objectively
intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (4) there exists some
basis for liability on the part of the employer. Id. at 834–35.

                                         6
   Case: 10-30767   Document: 00511598916      Page: 7   Date Filed: 09/12/2011



                                  No. 10-30767

      In order to satisfy the third element of a prima facie case of hostile work
environment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the harassment was objectively
unreasonable. Id. A workplace environment is hostile when it is “permeated
with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently
pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment.” Alaniz v. Quezada,
591 F.3d 761, 771 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the complained-of conduct must be
both objectively and subjectively offensive. EEOC v. WC&M Enters., 496 F.3d
393, 399 (5th Cir. 2007). This means that not only must a plaintiff perceive the
environment to be hostile, but it must appear hostile or abusive to a reasonable
person. Id. To determine whether conduct is objectively offensive, the totality
of the circumstances is considered, including: “(1) the frequency of the
discriminatory conduct; (2) its severity; (3) whether it is physically threatening
or humiliating, or merely an offensive utterance; and (4) whether it interferes
with an employee’s work performance.” Id.
                                        2.
      Having established that a discrimination claim for hostile work
environment based on the ADEA may be pursued in this circuit, we next
consider, based on the record below, whether the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Best Chevrolet was in error. We conclude that
it was.
      Here, Dediol’s age satisfies the first prong of the ADEA/hostile work
environment framework. Similarly, Dediol satisfies the second prong of the
analysis. Dediol asserts various incidents, many of which were witnessed by
Melady, which he claims were harassment. He was called names like “old
mother******,” “old man,” and “pops.” He also claims that after his request for
time off on July 4, Clay never used Dediol’s given name to refer to him but
instead only called him by these insults. These allegations satisfy the second
element. Moreover, as stated above, the record indicates that Dediol was called

                                        7
   Case: 10-30767   Document: 00511598916     Page: 8   Date Filed: 09/12/2011



                                  No. 10-30767

these names a half-dozen times daily from early July until the conclusion of his
tenure at Best Chevrolet.
      Here, the third factor is critical. In order to successfully challenge the
district court’s summary judgment against him, Dediol must establish a genuine
issue of material fact that the conduct was both objectively and subjectively
offensive. WC&M, 496 F.3d at 399. Here, the comments were subjectively
offensive, as evidenced by Dediol’s reaction in the workplace and ultimately by
his leaving the car dealership.
      Our discussion of objective offensiveness concerns a consideration of the
totality of the circumstances. Id. Here, the comments were frequent, when
compared to the complained of conduct in WC&M. In that case, this court
reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for a defendant-
employer. Id. A panel of this court held that a plaintiff-employee of Indian
descent, who worked as a car salesman for defendant, had been subject to
national origin discrimination based on comments made “multiple times a day.”
Id. at 396. The plaintiff in WC&M was called names like “Taliban” on the day
of and those immediately following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on
New York and Washington, D.C. He also tolerated implications that he was
involved in the attacks. Id. at 396–97.
      Furthermore, when considered against Farpella-Crosby v. Horizon Health
Care, 97 F.3d 803, 806–08 (5th Cir. 1996), Dediol’s complaint of frequently
harassing comments satisfies the first prong of the WC&M framework to
determine whether a work environment was objectively offensive. In Farpella-
Crosby, this court found frequency based on sexually harassing comments two
to three times a week for six months. 97 F.3d at 806–08. Yet, pursuant to
Harvill, 433 F.3d 434–35, the question for the court at this phase of the
proceedings is whether the relationship between the frequency of the comments



                                       8
   Case: 10-30767      Document: 00511598916    Page: 9    Date Filed: 09/12/2011



                                  No. 10-30767

and their severity created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary
judgment. We conclude that it did.
      This court in WC&M held that a “continuous pattern of much less severe
incidents can create an actionable claim.” WC&M, 496 F.3d at 400. Put
differently, the required level of severity or seriousness varies inversely with the
pervasiveness or frequency of the conduct. Id. Here, the half-dozen daily times
of remarks here support an actionable claim for age harassment. Yet, for Dediol
to continue, he must establish that the comments were in and of themselves
severe or pervasive.
      The district court and the Appellees cite Moody v. United States Sec’y. of
Army, 72 F. App’x 235, 239 (5th Cir. 2003), in support of the grant of summary
judgment against Dediol. Moody is not dispositive of the instant appeal. In that
case, Pearl Moody, aged 62, alleged that her supervisor harassed her for several
years based on her age; refused to give her a promotion or reevaluate her job;
and, that he refused to upgrade her pay scale to reflect the work she was
actually doing. Id. at 237.
      In a nonprecedential opinion, a panel of this court concluded that Moody
had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, under the familiar
framework articulated in McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
When Moody failed this benchmark, the court examined her direct evidence of
age discrimination. Moody, 72 F.App’x at 238. Within that procedural context,
the court considered her assertions that between August 1997 and September
1998, Moody’s supervisor uttered the following statements: “Granny, have you
not got anything to do?”; “See that old woman and she will take care of you.”;
“Old woman, when are you going to retire and go home so someone younger can
have a job?”; and, “Granny, when are you going to retire and let someone
younger have a job?” Id. at 238–39.



                                         9
  Case: 10-30767     Document: 00511598916      Page: 10    Date Filed: 09/12/2011



                                   No. 10-30767

      This court held that Moody failed to show that these remarks were
proximate in time to any employment action, and that the remarks did not
evince a hostile work environment under governing law. Id. at 239. In contrast,
the summary judgment record before us is quite distinct from that presented to
the court in Moody. Here, Clay’s repeated profane references to Dediol, and the
strident age-related comments about Dediol used by Clay on almost a daily basis
within the work setting, are sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact
concerning Dediol’s ADEA-based claim for hostile work environment
discrimination.
      Dediol also presented evidence indicating that workplace conduct was
physically threatening or humiliating. 496 F.3d at 399. Here, the record is
replete with incidents of physically threatening behavior by Clay towards Dediol.
First, Clay “charged” at Dediol at a staff meeting on August 29, 2007. Second,
Clay would often threaten to “kick [Dediol’s] ass.” Next, Clay allegedly removed
his shirt, and stated to Dediol, “You don’t know who you are talking to. See
these scars. I was shot and was in jail.” The tenor of these comments and
physical actions support the inference that the conduct was physically
threatening.
      The last prong of the WC&M objectively offensive analysis requires the
court to consider whether the harassment interfered with Dediol’s work
performance. Dediol claims that because of his age, Clay steered certain deals
away from him and towards younger salespersons. On this issue, the facts are
conflicting, and better suited for resolution by a trier of fact.
      While hostile work environment jurisprudence is not designed to “prohibit
all verbal or physical harassment in the workplace,” Oncale v. Sundowner
Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 77 (1998), the record supports Dediol’s
assertion that he endured a pattern of name-calling of a half-dozen times daily
and that it may have interfered with his pecuniary interests. Moreover, Clay’s

                                         10
  Case: 10-30767    Document: 00511598916     Page: 11   Date Filed: 09/12/2011



                                 No. 10-30767

behavior in threatening to beat up Dediol, “charging” at Dediol on August 29,
removing his shirt, and stating to Dediol “You don’t know who you are talking
to. See these scars. I was shot and was in jail,” underscore our conclusion that
at the very least, there is a genuine issue of material fact on this claim. These
allegations are for the trier of fact to resolve and summary judgment was
granted in error on Dediol’s claim of hostile work environment based on age.
                                       C.
      Dediol’s next discrimination claim is for hostile work environment based
on religion. Dediol can establish he was harassed based on religion by proving,
inter alia, that the harassment created a hostile or abusive working
environment. Harvill, 433 F.3d at 434–35. To establish a prima facie case of
harassment based on religion, a plaintiff must produce evidence that (1) he
belongs to a protected class; (2) he was subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) the
harassment was based on religion; (4) the harassment affected a term, condition,
or privilege of employment; and (5) the employer knew or should have known of
the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action. Id. at 434.
      Considering our standard of review and Dediol’s allegations, summary
judgment was granted in error. Here, Dediol has satisfied the first three prongs
of religious harassment: that he was a member of a protected class, that he was
subject to unwelcome harassment, and that the harassment was based on
religion. The propriety of the district court’s grant of summary judgment for
Best Chevrolet turns on whether Dediol was subject to a hostile or abusive
working environment.
      Dediol complains that he was forced to work on July 4th in a manner that
infringed on his right to exercise his religion freely. Moreover, Dediol alleges
that Clay made a string of remarks that, taken together, satisfy his burden of
production and the standard for summary judgment. For example, when Melady
granted him permission to attend an event at his church, that permission was

                                       11
  Case: 10-30767    Document: 00511598916      Page: 12   Date Filed: 09/12/2011



                                  No. 10-30767

then overruled by Clay in the following way: “You old mother******, you are not
going over there tomorrow” and “if you go over there [I’ll] fire your f*****g ass.”
When Dediol arrived early on the Fourth—between 7:20 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.
versus 10:00 a.m. or 11:00 a.m. for the other employees—Dediol claims that Clay
put his shoes on Dediol’s desk and stated: “Do you see these shoes? Your God did
not buy me these shoes. I bought these shoes. ” To this, Dediol evidently replied,
“Okay,” and did not press the matter further.
      Dediol claims preventing him from service to his church under the guise
of requiring him to be at work was pretext, because he was forced to come in
early the next day—well before others.        Dediol also complains that Clay
admonished him to “Get your ass out on the floor.” When Dediol replied that he
was reading his Bible, Clay replied, “Get outside and catch a customer. I don’t
have anybody in the lot. Go get outside.” The parties agree that Clay did not
know that Dediol was reading his Bible when he first instructed Dediol out on
the floor.
      As we have said before, a “continuous pattern of much less severe
incidents can create an actionable claim.” WC&M, 496 F.3d at 400. This inverse
relationship is present here.     While there is no one “smoking gun” that
establishes a hostile work environment based on religion, Dediol has pled
enough facts to show a pattern of smaller instances. At this phase of the
proceedings, Dediol has created a genuine issue of material fact that these
comments were not “stray remarks, with no connection to an employment
decision.”   Scales v. Slater, 181 F.3d 703, 712 (5th Cir. 1999). Dediol has
pointed to certain instances of acrimony based on religion that, based on our
standard of review, support our conclusion that the district court’s grant of
summary judgment on this issue is reversible error.




                                        12
  Case: 10-30767    Document: 00511598916      Page: 13   Date Filed: 09/12/2011



                                  No. 10-30767

                                        D.
      Dediol’s third and last basis for appeal is the district court’s grant of
summary judgment for Best Chevrolet on his claim of constructive discharge. To
prove constructive discharge, a party must show that “a reasonable party in his
shoes would have felt compelled to resign.” Benningfield v. City of Houston, 157
F.3d 369, 378 (5th Cir. 1998).      The claim requires a “greater severity of
pervasiveness or harassment than the minimum required to prove a hostile work
environment.” Id. To determine if a reasonable employee would feel compelled
to resign, courts consider the relevancy of the following events: (1) demotion; (2)
reduction in salary; (3) reduction in job responsibility; (4) reassignment to
menial or degrading work; (5) reassignment to work under a younger supervisor;
(6) badgering harassment, or humiliation by the employer calculated to
encourage the employee’s resignation; or (7) offers of early retirement or
continued employment on terms less favorable than the employee’s former
status. Brown v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 237 F.3d 556, 566 (5th Cir. 2001).
      Our review of the record yields a genuine issue of material fact on this
issue, too. For example, in the eight-week span between the July 3rd incident
and his resignation from Best Chevrolet, tensions escalated into a physical
altercation in front of others, which precipitated Dediol’s departure from Best
Chevrolet. The record illustrates a difficult—and at times volatile—relationship
Dediol shared with Clay. Unhappy in the Used Cars department, Dediol sought
to maintain his employment with Best Chevrolet, but in a different department.
When this request was rejected, the situation erupted, eventually compelling
Dediol to resign. We conclude that in this case, these allegations survive
summary judgment.
                                       III.




                                        13
  Case: 10-30767   Document: 00511598916     Page: 14   Date Filed: 09/12/2011



                                  No. 10-30767

      For the reasons stated above, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Best Chevrolet and REMAND for proceedings not
inconsistent with this opinion.
      REVERSED AND REMANDED.




                                      14