United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter is before the Court on Defendant Gen 3 Co., LLC's
Motion for Summary Judgment, in which Defendant argues that
it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on both of
Plaintiff Tammy Roach's Title VII employment
discrimination claims. (Doc. # 32.) For the reasons discussed
below, the Court grants Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment.
I.
BACKGROUND
Defendant
is a construction company based in Denver, Colorado. (Doc. #
1 at 2.) It employed Plaintiff as an administrative assistant
from May 18, 2017, to October 6, 2017. (Doc. # 1 at 3, 7.)
A.
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff
alleges that her coworker, Jonathan Butler, regularly made
inappropriate comments towards her (Doc. # 32-1 at 17) and
sexually harassed her four specific times (Doc. # 32 at
2).[1]
Defendant does not dispute that these four incidents
occurred. (Doc. # 32 at 3-8.)
Plaintiff
reports that Butler would say or do things, nearly on a daily
basis, that made her uncomfortable. (Doc. # 34 at 1.) For
example, Butler regularly winked at Plaintiff and blew her
kisses. (Doc. # 1 at 3.) Butler also frequently told
Plaintiff that she was beautiful and complimented her eyes.
(Id.) Plaintiff ignored Butler. (Id.)
The
first specific incident of alleged sexual harassment occurred
in mid-June 2017, when Butler entered Plaintiff's office
and offered to rub Plaintiff's “hard-working
hands.” (Doc. # 1 at 4.) When Plaintiff's
supervisor, James Palmer, overheard this, Palmer told Butler,
“Dude, get back to work.” (Id.) Palmer
immediately talked with Butler further and told him that his
comments were not appropriate for the workplace. (Doc. # 32-1
at 42.) Palmer told Butler not to talk to Plaintiff anymore.
(Id.)
The
second incident happened approximately one or two weeks
later, in late June 2017. (Doc. # 32-1 at 6-8.) As Plaintiff
and other employees were returning from a break, Butler, who
is African-American, invited Plaintiff to be with him as a
“black man, ” and said that he could make her
happy. (Id. at 10.) Butler stated that he wanted
Plaintiff to give him an opportunity to “love and treat
[her] right.” (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff
interpreted these comments as an invitation for Plaintiff to
have sex with Butler. (Doc. # 1 at 3.) Plaintiff later told
Palmer about Butler's comments. (Doc. # 32-1 at 10-11.)
The
third incident occurred in early August 2017, when Butler
followed Plaintiff into the inventory supply room.
(Id. at 11.) Plaintiff was opening boxes, and Butler
said to her, “Here, sweetie, here, I have a box cutter.
. . . I'll help you open those boxes.”
(Id. at 12.) As he handed Plaintiff a box cutter,
Butler touched Plaintiff's hand and rubbed her arm.
(Id.) Plaintiff told Butler that he was not supposed
to be in the inventory supply room. (Id.) Plaintiff
alleges that Butler's conduct made her very
uncomfortable. (Doc. # 1 at 4.) When Plaintiff walked by
Butler and left the room, Butler did not touch or impede
Plaintiff. (Doc. # 32-1 at 15.) When Plaintiff told Palmer
about the incident, Palmer believed the touching to be
accidental. (Id. at 44-45.) Still, Palmer directed
Mike Davis, the leadman, to watch Butler and intervene if he
saw Butler talking to Plaintiff. (Id. at 45.)
The
fourth incident happened the morning of August 29, 2017, when
Plaintiff was alone in the office. (Doc. # 1 at 5.) Butler
entered the room and was “hyper.” (Doc. # 32-1 at
20.) He said to Plaintiff, “Oh my God, Tammy . . . I
have all these bedbugs in my place. It's a new place, and
I got bedbugs in my bed, and you won't believe these
f**king things, they've eaten me up. They've . . .
eaten at my f**king dick.” (Id.) Butler then
pulled up his shirt to show Plaintiff the bedbug bites on his
torso. (Id.) He also pulled down the waistband of
his pants, exposing his boxer shorts and some of his pubic
hair. (Id.) Butler did not expose his genitals to
Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff said, “Whoa, whoa,
we need to talk to [Palmer] about this, ” and left the
office to look for Palmer. (Id. at 20-21.) When
Plaintiff was deposed, she stated that she did not interpret
Butler's behavior on this occasion to be sexual.
(Id. at 30.)
Meanwhile,
Butler left the office and encountered Davis, the leadman.
(Id. at 57.) Butler lifted his shirt and pulled down
his pants to show Davis the bedbug bites on his torso and
legs. (Id.) Davis told Butler that he was behaving
inappropriately. (Id.) Butler pulled up his pants
and went back to work, but Davis continued to watch him.
(Id. at 58; 60.) Butler was acting strangely and
became irate when he realized Davis was watching him.
(Id. at 60-61.) Davis and another employee sent
Butler home for the day, but they asked Butler to come back
the next day. (Id. at 61.)
Later
that day, Plaintiff told both Davis and Palmer about her
encounter with Butler. (Id. at 47, 62.) Davis
testified that he and Plaintiff agreed that Butler “did
the same thing” to both of them. (Id. at 62.)
Palmer called Butler and asked him to come back to work after
taking a drug test. (Doc. # 34-1 at 13.) Butler declined and
told Palmer that he was quitting the job immediately because
he had found another job in sanitation. (Id. at 13.)
Butler never returned to Defendant's workplace, and
Plaintiff never saw Butler again. (Doc. # 32-1 at 31-32.)
Palmer
never documented any of Plaintiff's complaints about
Butler or reported her concerns to upper management. (Doc. #
34-1 at 17.) Aside from a very brief conversation with Shaun
Hartley, Field Superintendent, at a personal function
(Id. at 3), Plaintiff did not raise her concerns
about Butler's conduct to anyone in upper management
either because she was told to follow her “chain of
command” (Doc. # 32-1 at 33). Plaintiff admits that
Palmer was never hostile to or displeased with her for
expressing her concerns about Butler. (Id. at 34.)
Palmer states in an affidavit that he did not have “any
animosity, displeasure, or ill feelings” for Plaintiff
because of her allegations. (Id. at 73.)
B.
RETALIATORY FIRING ALLEGATIONS
On
October 5, 2017, approximately five weeks later,
Defendant's owner, Tyler Elward, entered the shop office
when Palmer was not there. (Doc. # 1 at 7.) Plaintiff
initiated a conversation with Elward, telling him that work
was slow in the shop and that employees were upset because
they did not have enough to do. (Id.) Soon
thereafter, the Defendant's President, Jeff Austad,
entered the shop to ask Palmer why the employees were not
busy. (Doc. # 32-1 at 52-53.) Austad and other upper
management members were upset because at the time, the shop
actually had a heavy ...