Clark v. Yellow Transportation, Inc. , 381 F. App'x 848 ( 2010 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
June 7, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
MARK A. CLARK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 09-3270
(D.C. No. 2:07-CV-02072-JPO)
YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, (D. Kan.)
INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, BALDOCK and TACHA, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Mark A. Clark, appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s
order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Yellow Transportation,
Inc. (“Yellow”) on his complaint alleging race discrimination and retaliation in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
The parties are familiar with the facts, which are set forth in the district
court’s thirty-five-page summary judgment order. Briefly, Mr. Clark, an
African-American, is employed as an over-the-road driver with Yellow, a motor
carrier company. Mr. Clark was warned in October and November 2005, that he
had taken a longer rest period after a run than he was entitled to and that further
similar conduct would result in disciplinary action. Mr. Clark alleges that Yellow
issued the warning letters based on race discrimination and retaliation for a prior
EEOC charge. In July 2006, Mr. Clark’s co-driver, who is also African-
American, was terminated after an accident, though he was re-hired nine days
later. Mr. Clark alleges that he was affected by his partner’s termination and that
a white driver was not terminated after a similar accident.
The district court granted Yellow’s motion for summary judgment. It ruled
that Mr. Clark failed to timely exhaust his administrative remedies as to the July
2006 accident because all of the adverse actions he alleged had occurred more
than 300 days before he filed his November 2007 EEOC charge. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(e); Shikles v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 426 F.3d 1304, 1317 (10th Cir.
2005) (recognizing this court’s holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies
is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in Title VII cases). Viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to Mr. Clark, the district court ruled that the 2005
warning letters could constitute adverse employment actions, but that Mr. Clark
failed to establish a prima facie claim of racial discrimination because he had not
-2-
presented evidence that similarly situated employees were treated differently. See
Trujillo v. Univ. of Colo. Health Scis. Ctr., 157 F.3d 1211, 1215 (10th Cir. 1998)
(placing the burden on the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of
discrimination by showing (1) that he is a member of a racial minority, (2) that he
was subject to an adverse employment action, and (3) that similarly situated
employees who are not members of the minority class were treated more
favorably). The district court also ruled that Mr. Clark failed to establish a prima
facie case of retaliation because he did not present evidence of any causal
connection between the 2005 letters and the EEOC charge filed more than one
year earlier. It further ruled, as to both the discrimination and retaliation claims,
that Mr. Clark did not argue or present any evidence that Yellow’s stated reasons
for issuing the warning letters were pretextual. See Randle v. City of Aurora,
69 F.3d 441, 451 (10th Cir. 1995) (holding that plaintiff may resist summary
judgment by presenting evidence that the employer’s proffered non-
discriminatory reason for the adverse action was pretextual or unworthy of
belief). This appeal followed.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same legal
standard applied by the district court. Young v. Dillon Cos., 468 F.3d 1243, 1249
(10th Cir. 2006). Summary judgment is proper where “the pleadings, the
discovery materials on file, and any affidavits,” demonstrate that there is no
genuine issue of material fact and “that the movant is entitled to judgment as a
-3-
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). “In conducting our analysis, we view
all of the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draw all
reasonable inferences from the record in favor of the non-moving party.” Young,
468 F.3d at 1249.
On appeal, Mr. Clark asserts that (1) he was unable to file a timely EEOC
charge because he could not to find an attorney to take his case; (2) he did not
violate Yellow’s rest period policies; (3) evidence that four of the eighteen
drivers who received rest-period warning letters were African-American is
evidence that similarly situated employers were treated more favorably because
this percentage is disproportionate to the number of African-Americans employed
by Yellow; (4) he did suffer adverse consequences because of his co-driver’s
nine-day termination; and (5) on occasion he was not assigned a route until after a
white driver, in violation of Yellow’s first-in-first-out work rules. Mr. Clark also
contends the district court erred in denying his motion to amend to add a hostile
work environment claim based on an offensive photograph of NFL quarterback
Michael Vick hung near a work time clock.
We have carefully examined the parties’ briefs, the record, and the district
court’s orders granting summary judgment and denying the motion to amend in
light of the governing law. We commend the district court for its thoroughness in
setting forth the factual background of Mr. Clark’s claims and for its excellent
analysis of his discrimination and retaliation claims. We conclude that the court
-4-
correctly decided this case, and we affirm for substantially the same reasons as
those thoroughly explained in its August 25, 2009, order. Further, we find no
error in the district court’s order denying Mr. Clark’s motion to amend his
complaint because evidence of only one allegedly offensive photograph fails to
state a hostile work environment claim. See Creamer v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc.,
86 F.3d 167, 170-71 (10th Cir. 1996) (affirming determination that one incident
was insufficiently severe to create a hostile working environment).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Deanell R. Tacha
Circuit Judge
-5-