The Honorable Richard McDermott
Note for Hearing with Oral Arguments
Friday, January 18th, 2002 at
9:00AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING
COUNTY
|
LARRY PITTMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. Defendant |
No. 99-2-52345-8KNT DECLARATION OF MICHAEL DAVIS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS |
I, Michael Davis,
declare,
I have read King’s Command motion to dismiss me. I have some things to say.
When I was in the deposition, the lawyer for King’s Command asked me questions about an accident I was in when my cousin (who I grew up with as was like a brother) was killed. Then he asked me if the distress I felt from being fired at King’s Command was as bad as the distress from losing my brother. I’m still sick over that kind of questioning. How can he compare two things like that. What right does he have to bring up some of the most painful events in my life and make me suffer living through them. It was like he was enjoying it. I think King’s Command chose the right lawyer to represent them. Someone who wants to make people suffer like King’s Command did.
In their motion, they say that I got the promotion in April and the suit didn’t start until December. Well, the suit wasn’t filed until December of 1999, but we were started talking about it in April and management at the plant knew that the suit was going to be filed. Everyone knew. So what they’re saying is not true. I got the promotion when they knew the suit was being filed.
I told them in the deposition that Tim Markewicz made the remark that I was being assigned to grinder because I was a young, black male. The lawyer asks me: well aren’t you young, black, and you’re a male? Maybe they wanted a strong person to do the grinder job, but what does my age have to do with it? What does my gender have to do with it? What does my color of skin have to do with it? I didn’t want to move to the grinder job. I liked the sanitation job. Eventually I wanted to leave sanitation because most of us were black and this is one of the places they put all the blacks and then treated us like slaves. They said racial things to us—management did. They talked down to us. Like I said, they treated us like slaves. The reason co-workers felt that it was okay to make racial epithets towards us is because management did it and condoned it. This was not random. It was all the time. Robert from the grind line would not have said these things if Terry Smith had not condoned it. Terry thought it was funny. He laughed.
The Defendants state in their Motion that I had no machine operator experience and, therefore, cannot prove qualification for that position. Shannon Shaw (Caucasian) came “off the street (a friend of Jody Lombard)” and had less seniority and no experience as a machine operator but he still got that job in front of me.
Defendants state that there was no machine operator position open from June of 1998 until two weeks before I was terminated, February of 1999. I totally disagree. There was one open that Shannon Shaw got and there was another one filled by another Caucasian whose name I don’t have.
King’s Command states that they don’t have an application from me for machine operator, but Terry Smith already stated in his declaration that they didn’t keep the applications for promotion so it’s their word against mine.
Defendants want to make it look like I’m lying about Thomas: “Interestingly, Thomas and Davis were not scheduled to work at the same time, as Thomas’ shift began as Davis’ work day ended." Smith 3rd Dec. ¶ 28 [Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs Michael Davis, Joe Donkor, Yolanda Eskridge and Sidney Lanier].” Robert Thomas’ shift and my shift overlapped everyday. We saw each other everyday.
In their Motion, Defendant say “Davis also claims disparate treatment because of an incident with the night shift foreman, Tim Markewicz. [My deposition, 121:15-17, 161:18-167:24” and then regarding this incident: “He concedes his allegation of race discrimination against Markewicz is a mere assumption. [My deposition, 130:11-13]”. And they further state: “This incident was ‘nothing more than a difference of opinion and personality conflict’ – not discrimination. Hawkins v. PepsiCo., Inc., 203 F 3d 274, 276 (4th Cir.) cert. Denied,_U.S._(2000).” This was not an isolated incident nor was it just a personality conflict. Defendants asked me for one example and I gave it. This doesn’t mean that this type of thing only happened one time and it surely doesn’t prove that it was a personality conflict instead of disparate treatment based on race. If I, as a black man, walked up to a white man and used the inflammatory language he used with me, then that black man, at King’s Command, would have been terminated. It didn’t work two ways. There was an atmosphere that confirmed or allowed whites to cuss and blacks and assault them verbally and physically. How can this not be disparate treatment based on race?
I stated in my deposition and restate in this declaration that Larry Pittman went to the union to file a grievance for racial discrimination and he had a meeting set up with the company and they terminated him two days before the meeting. Yolanda Eskridge filed a complaint with the union and they did nothing about it. I knew that if I went to the union or complained too much, I would most likely be terminated. I needed this job.
I told them in the deposition that I was terminated with the occurrence policy because of race. They set me up to have the occurrences and be fired. They asked me what examples I had that they didn’t do this to whites. My answer was Jody Lambert’s girlfriend. I know that she had six occurrences and didn’t get fired. I believe her name was Shawna Flowers.
I also saw Dave Cassatt’s occurrences and he had six and wasn’t fired.
The preceding statement is made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington.
______________________________
Michael Davis
If the back button does not take you there, click Home to go to the Index page of this Pittman et al v. King's Command Foods, Inc. Website.