The Honorable Richard McDermott
Note for Hearing with Oral Arguments
February 7, 2002 at 9:00AM
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON
|
LARRY PITTMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Defendant. |
No. 99-2-52345-8KNT DECLARATION OF larry pittman
IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION for summary judgment to dismiss
larry pittman |
I, Larry Pittman, declare,
I am a plaintiff in the above captioned case
I have read Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiff Larry Pittman and I wish to make the following rebuttals of fact to Defendant's allegations.
Defendants state:
"He claims he did he does not like to lift boxes and doing so hurt his left knee. Notwithstanding, he submitted an employment application for permanent employment on December 31, 1996. Smith 7th Dec. ¶ 14, Ex. 5. Nothing racially inappropriate was said to him. Pittman Dep., 28:21-29:12."
This isn't the way it happened and I did not say that nothing racially inappropriate happened. They asked me why I left as a temporary after only a week and I told them it was because they were racist. And then they asked me why I came back and I told them I worked for the temp agency and they sent me back. I filled out the application before I quit as a temp the first time. The date may be correct but it didn't happen the way they described. I did say I didn't like lifting boxes but that's not why I quit as a temp. I quit because they were racists and I told them so.
Defendants then state:
"Pittman could not recall when these alleged events occurred or what was specifically said. Id. He also did not know the circumstances that gave rise to the alleged events and did not report it. Id. He observed no other inappropriate conduct. Id. However, he claims to have reported allegations of discrimination to an unidentified male manager at Interim. Id. at 32:5-21. Interim denies it received any reports of race discrimination by King's Command. See Massey Declaration."
They are 100% right. I could not remember word for word what was said but it happened during the first two or three weeks of my employment as a temp and I did report it to Interim. I don't believe I have ever met Mr. Massey (to the best of my knowledge) so a declaration from him does not mean anything. To say Interim denies receiving a report of discrimination from King's Command does not make sense. They received a report from me.
Defendants then state:
"He worked as a temporary for one week, submitted an application, and was offered and accepted a full-time position as a laborer in building maintenance on January 6, 1997.
This again is wrong because I was hired as a condensation technician and there was no such thing as laborer in building maintenance. I was there for about a year as a Condensation Technician, then the union came in and then after four or five months I was changed to Building Maintenance and then to Laborer.
"On a regular basis, Pittman would demand a pay raise. His labor position did not support continual pay raises, so management informed him that he must improve his performance and that he could move to a production position -- packer -- or onto the sanitation crew if he was seeking advancement."
At no time do I recall management saying or writing up anything about my performance or a need to improve it. If they have such a document, they should be required to produce it. I worked in production, cutting red meat. I worked on the lines in production and my job was the same as the clean-up crew. The clean-up crew took machinery apart, cleaned it, and put it back together. They cleaned the floors. I took machinery apart and cleaned it and put it back together and cleaned the floors. See Declaration of Vicki Tofstad, and Declaration of Victor Woodin and Declaration of Larry Shockley.
"On September 25, 1998, Pittman demanded another pay raise, and when refused, he quit. Pittman had not completed his secondary education which effectively limited his promotional opportunities unless he agreed to begin at a production position.
The first statement of the pay raise is a flat out lie. On September 25 it was raining outside. The parking lot had two feet of standing water. I had to lie in the water to unplug the sewer. I had completed that job, taken all my clothes off, put them in the dryer, dried my clothes, punched out and was leaving the building to start my vacation when Kirk McCoy came up to me and said "boy where do you think you're going" and started yelling and cussing at me and telling me who's the boss and I did quit.
Even while the lawsuit is on-going they are still trying to discriminate against me by saying my opportunities were limited because I did not have a secondary education. They knew I didn't finish high school while I worked there. And Defendants stated several times in their interrogatory responses that a high school diploma was not necessary to obtain production positions.
Then they state:
"A week later, Pittman wanted his laborer job back."
That's a lie. I never called them to ask for my job back. I had already found a better job. I quit on Friday and they called on Sunday and wanted me to come back and I told them no. They called on Monday and asked me to come back and I told them no. I worked for one week on my other job. They called me and set up a meeting for me to come in and talk to them and they promised me that they would work with me to get a raise and a promotion and that Kirk McCoy would no longer be my supervisor and Pete DeWitt would.
Then, they manipulate the facts:
"As a laborer, Pittman was assigned to work, in part, in the quality assurance department, where he reported to Peter DeWitt. He also reported to McCoy, who remained his supervisor throughout his employment.
When I came back, part of the deal was that Kirk McCoy could never say anything to me again. And where they're talking about "as a laborer", this was not at the end of one year. I was a laborer at the end of three years. So it looks like they are mixing all the facts together so that they paint a different picture of what actually happened.
They said I lied, that "...the sanitation crew employed Caucasians."
The supervisor, Dave Cassatt was white, but all the workers were black outside of Nathan Kilcrease. This can be verified on the 1997 Seniority List.
They then state:
"Pittman claims the 'janitors' were African-American. Again, he retracts his overbroad generalization and concedes Dave Cassatt and Don Furtick, Caucasians, had filled that job.
Don Furtick was promoted out to machine operator before I came in. Dave Cassatt was demoted from supervisor to my position after I was terminated in 1999. So as far as the actual facts that I stated, I am right, all of the janitors were black while I was there.
Then they state:
"He also argues that maintenance, quality assurance and shipping positions were filled by only Caucasians. He is incorrect as maintenance, quality assurance and shipping have multi-racial crews.
This is not true. I stated there were no blacks. If you look at the seniority lists for 1997, 1998 and 1999 (attached) it will be clear that there were no blacks. See also the Declaration of Curtis Dolley who worked in shipping and who stated that there were no blacks working in his department.
Then they lie again:
"He also did not apply for a sample position."
Again, they discriminated against me:
"He wanted to jump a rung on the promotion ladder without learning the job or having relevant experience."
In the first place, I did have the relevant experience. They are actually describing my desire to be a machine operator. I already cleaned the machine, breaking them down, cleaning and putting them back together, so I had the experience. But, the kicker is, see attached KCF01502, where Hernandez-Santillan went from laborer to machine operator in less than six months and I was there for three years and they said I lacked experience.
And then they say:
"...their rule say it goes packer, line lead, machine operator."
Well if this is their rule, look again above at Hernandez-Santillan who went from laborer to machine operator in six months. No packer, no line lead, just laborer to machine operator.
Again, they lie:
"Pittman asserts discrimination because he was not promoted to a quality assurance certified technician position. In that department were manager Pete DeWitt and employees Irene Kwieciszewska, Jerry Clark, Celeste Burnett, Samson Mendiola and Oscar Gamboa. Pittman claims he worked with Pete DeWitt, who as 'in charge".
Irene was there in 1997 and then she quit 8/1/97. We didn't work together. Pete DeWitt was hired in 1998 and Irene was already gone. I didn't work with all these white people at one time. For example, I worked with Irene the first six months and then she quit. Pete DeWitt came in. I was in Quality Control before Jerry Clark got there. I was in Quality Control before Celeste got there, and Samson and Oscar. I was only with Pete DeWitt before any of these people applied. The first time they posted a position they gave it to Jerry Clark, the second time they gave it to Celeste and then Gamboa. So all these people came into the department after me and they were all promoted over me. Defendants try to confuse the court by grouping all of these together.
Defendant states in their motion to dismiss me, page 8:
"He also contends Shirley Grennan was selected to fill a machine operator position she did not want; however, Pittman is incorrect. Pittman asked management why he was not selected to fill the machine operator position and alleges they told him, '[y]ou cannot get raise because of your classification, and the only way you can get a raise would be to go to the union and have the union reclassify you."
Again they are deceiving the court. Actually, I went to the union in 1998 about the reclassification and the situation with Shirley Grennan applying for the machine operator job was in 1999. These two different situations were one year apart, but Defendant lumps them together as if they were the same instance.
Defendant states in their motion to dismiss me, page 14:
"The day shift box maker position had been filled by hourly employee Mark Moore from May 5, 1991 to December 1, 1998.
I refer the court to the Seniority List of August 13, 1999, which shows that Mark Moore was a box maker in 1999. So the above quotation is untrue or the Seniority List is untrue. But the two are inconsistent.
In addition, interrogatory response document KCF01566 shows that Mark Moore was promoted to utility person with a $4.00 per hour raise right after I was terminated. This was filling the position I left. I had tried to get a raise for doing this work for three years.
I can refute every statement they put in here about me, but I think the court gets the idea by the inconsistencies I have set out already.
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED this 28th day of January, 2002 Seattle, Washington
_____________________________
Larry Pittman
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.