Skip to main content

Employer's Legitimate, Non-Discriminatory Reason for Termination of Employee Defeats Title VII Discrimination Claim


Maahnchooch Ghogomu v. Delta Airlines Global Services LLC - Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Maahnchooch Ghogomu ("Ghogomu") worked for Delta Airlines ("Delta") at the Tulsa International Airport.  Before every Delta flight is pushed back from the gate, a "final walk around" of the plane is to occur by a Delta employee.  Certain things are to be checked, such as making sure the fuel-panel door is secure.  When a flight left Tulsa for Detroit, no final walk around was apparently conducted.  As a result, a fuel-panel door was left open which resulted in damage to the airplane.  Delta subsequently investigated and found that Ghogomu was the employee who was supposed to have conducted the final walk around.  Having already been warned that another infraction could result in his termination, Delta fired Ghogomu for failing to conduct the required final walk around.

Ghogomu brought suit against Delta on the grounds that he had been discriminated against because of his race and ethnicity, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Delta and denied Ghogomu's own summary judgment motion.  Ghogomu appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Holding:  The Tenth Circuit began its analysis with a close examination of the facts which led the district court to grant summary judgment in favor of Delta.  In this case, the facts demonstrated that Ghogomu was the employee who was in charge of doing the final walk around of the flight before it left Tulsa.  Although a video had shown that Ghogomu was the responsible employee, the fact that the video no longer existed was not detrimental to Delta's motion.  

Although Ghogomu alleged there was a cover up by Delta (as Ghogomu claimed the video was fabricated and other Delta employees lied about having seen the video), that did not control the dispute.  As the Court of Appeals pointed out, Ghogomu did not deny that he was responsible for the final walk around.  The fact that Ghogomu was responsible for the final walk around and had been on notice that further infractions could result in his termination was what this case ultimately turned on.  Given those reasons for his termination, the Court held that summary judgment had properly been granted in Delta's favor.

Judgment:  The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling and held that Delta had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Ghogomu and subsequently Delta had not violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it chose to terminate Ghogomu.

The Takeaway:  This is a case where the facts are very, very important.  Notice the Court pinpointed certain undisputed facts upon which to base its conclusion that the granting of summary judgment in Delta's favor was proper.  It goes without saying that had Delta still had a copy of the video, that would have taken away one of Ghogomu's big arguments.  However, the fact that Ghogomu acknowledged he was responsible for the final walk around (and damage to the plane resulted from his failure to complete the walk around) is what ultimately doomed his case.  This is a ruling that the Court got right.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Bacharach

Date:  June 16, 2016

Opinion:  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjQluTH2ZnOAhXD7yYKHa0-BQIQFggfMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ca10.uscourts.gov%2Fopinions%2F15%2F15-5112.pdf&usg=AFQjCNERgIQlTD4iCamyek0_zNCw4juSjQ&sig2=DWhaPHftKFuMHRODtlio_A&bvm=bv.128617741,d.eWE

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more