Pittman et al v. King's Command Foods, Inc. Website
We WON reinstatement of eight plaintiffs on September 8, 2003 on hostile work environment claims!!!!!! Here is the Decision!!! It has now been more than thirty days. No Petition for Review has been filed, it will be remanded back to King County Superior Court.
The purpose of this website is to introduce you to an appalling situation at King's Command Foods, Inc. in Kent, Washington. Since the mid-1990's King's Command has employed about two dozen black men and women in blue collar positions. Unfortunately, pursuant to unwritten policies of King's Command Management, including Jim Baer, Terry Smith, Tim Markowitz, and Kirk McCoy, this company has engaged in a horrendous racist culture aimed at keeping the black employees from advancing in their careers, from being given a fair chance at applying for permanent positions, for having an "occurrence" policy strictly and not always honestly applied to them to get rid of them after a few years, and harassment above and beyond the call of duty.
Before the mid-1990's, King's Command hired only a few blacks, and none before 1990. At that time, the company actually had on its premises paintings and artwork depicting the lynching of black men.
By hostile work environment, what we mean is the following examples: While some of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit heard only a few stray racist remarks, they heard racist remarks nevertheless. When such remarks were uttered by co-workers, the black employees quickly learned that complaining of them to either King's Command management or to the union was to be so ineffective as to not be worth the effort. Kirk McCoy suggested to Mary Coleman on or about Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in January that we should celebrate a "James Earl Ray Day". Other plaintiffs, including Larry Pittman and Keith Kern, were called "nigger" "stupid ass motherfucker" and other such lovely terminology on a daily basis. In addition, Kirk McCoy physically assaulted Larry Pittman almost every day while calling him racist and insulting terms, sometimes leaving him in physical pain. What Larry had to go through to earn his blue collar hourly salary should appall everyone who is not a neo-Nazi or a card carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan. It would even get sympathy from Klan members.
But not from King County Superior Court Judge Richard McDermott. In spite a mountain of evidence including deposition testimony by the plaintiffs attached to declarations by the DEFENDANT'S attorneys, documents supplied by the defendant corporation which provides raw data that establishes disparate treatment as to wages, merit raises, discipline policies, and in spite of considerable testimony that numerous jobs within the plant were not posted or posted only briefly to deny black employees the opportunity to apply for them, and in spite of considerable deposition testimony and declarations establishing that many such applications were torn up and thrown away, and in spite of declarations from white employees and former white employees confirming the widespread culture of discrimination, Judge McDermott ruled on February 8, 2002 that there was not enough evidence to allow any plaintiff other than Larry Pittman himself, to go to jury trial. Then on February 14, 2002, St. Valentine's Day, he granted summary judgment dismissing Larry Pittman himself.
Linked to this page are the briefs and declarations filed by the plaintiffs in this case in opposition to the defendant's summary judgment motions. Please read through these documents and decide for yourself whether you can support the reelection of a judge who denied these plaintiffs their constitutional right to a jury trial for determination of facts.
Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs Michael Pittman, Sylvester Pittman, Relashia Searles and James Goode, in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs Abruquah, Barnes, Forest, Kilcrease and Hollis, and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs Michael Davis, Joe Donker, Yolanda Eskridge, and Sidney Lanier
Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiff Larry Pittman
Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Based on After Acquired Evidence
Declaration of Eric Ahrin in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
Declaration of Benjamin Barnes in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Declaration of Judith Calhoun on False Statements and Disparate Treatment Regarding Merit Raises
Declaration of Gregory Cody in Support of Co-Plaintiffs
Declaration of Gregory Cody in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
Declaration of Mary Coleman in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
Declaration of Michael Davis in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Declaration of Shabae Diquan in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
Declaration of Yolanda Eskridge in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
Declaration of Ron Goodar in Opposition to Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion
Declaration of Denise Haynes in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
Declaration of Curtis Hollis in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Declaration of Keith Kern in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs Michael Pittman, Sylvester Pittman, Relashia Searles and James Goode and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs Abruquah, Barnes, Forest, Kilcrease and Hollis
Declaration of Nathan Kilcrease in Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Declaration of Roger W. Knight in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary judgment Based on After Acquired Evidence. Click here for Mr. Knight's Website about the Antipeonage Act.
Declaration of Katie Lemur in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Declaration of Royce McMillon in Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
Declaration of Larry Pittman, Keith Kerns, & Curtis Hollis Regarding 5 Minute Grace Period
Declaration of Larry E. Pittman in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs Michael Pittman, Sylvester Pittman, Relashia Searles and James Goode and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs Abruquah, Barnes, Forest, Kilcrease and Hollis
Declaration of Michael Pittman in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs Michael Pittman, Sylvester Pittman, Relashia Searles and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plainitffs Abruquah, Barnes, Forest, Kilcrease and Hollis
Declaration of Sylvester Pittman in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs Michael Pittman, Sylvester Pittman, Relashia Searles and James Goode and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs Abruquah, Barnes, Forest, Kilcrease and Hollis
Declaration of Relashia Searles in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs Michael Pittman, Sylvester Pittman, Relashia Searles and James Goode and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs Abruquah, Barnes, Forest, Kilcrease and Hollis
Declaration of Larry Shockley in Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
Click here for our Links page to other websites describing miscarriages of justice.
In response to the atrocious decisions by King County Superior Court Judge Richard McDermott, we filed an appeal to the Washington Court of Appeals, Division One. On October 21, 2002, we filed our Brief of Appellant.
On March 17, 2003 we filed our Reply Brief.
We had oral argument in on June 5, 2003, before Judges Ronald E. Cox, Mary Kay Becker, and William W. Baker. John R. Scannell appeared for the Pittman appellants and Daniel Ferm of Williams, Kastner, and Gibbs appeared for King's Command Foods. Mr. Scannell reserved three minutes for rebuttal. He presented the case that while King's Command wants to have each incident considered separately and in isolation, we should consider the overall case as a whole: there was widespread pattern of behavior and that it was management led. While some of the incidents may be out of statute of limitations, they are admissible as supporting a pattern of behavior. In the case of some incidents where there is "no comparator" meaning no white employee who was treated more favorably under similar circumstances, the cure for that is that with many of the incidents at issue, there were comparators, and all incidents support the proposition that there was a racially poisonous atmosphere. He argued that the Ironworkers case establishes that discrimination can be proven by a pattern of behavior and that the Ironworkers findings are appropriate for chapter 49.60 RCW.
Daniel Ferm spent his ten minutes answering a barrage of questions from all three judges. Judge Baker asked about whether what we were talking about was a hostile work environment, which would affect the terms and conditions of employment. As to King's Command's position that the Complaint was limited to only promotion and opportunities for career growth, does not all incidents of racial discrimination affect promotion and opportunities for career growth? And if the discovery showed a widespread pattern of behavior, does not that also affect promotion and opportunities in career growth. And aren't all of these incidents, including hostile work environment, covered by RCW 49.60.030, which was pleaded in the Complaint? Judge Becker brought up the alleged fact that one of the appellants was physically assaulted on a regular basis. Mr. Ferm discussed the occurrence policy and suggested that Larry Pittman should have had more occurrences on account he would be five minutes late and often was not assessed an occurrence because he was "in tight" with management.
( I worked on this case folks, I would like to see where in the record there is any evidence or testimony that sets forth, from personal knowledge under oath or penalty of perjury testimony, that 1) Larry Pittman was "in tight" with management, and 2) He was absent on other occasions than those occasions when he was assessed occurrences.)
Mr. Ferm admitted that Terry Smith was the plant manager and that everyone else was a "co-worker". If an appellant failed to go through proper channels and report to Terry Smith, then co-worker abuse cannot be imputed to management. The judges seemed skeptical, but Mr. Ferm admitted that Terry Smith was the plant manager. The judges then asked about Shabae Diquon's testimony about Terry Smith. Mr. Ferm said, well, Mr. Diquon was the only witness who testified as to Mr. Smith racial remarks.
(That is not exactly true either. There is other testimony in the record establishing Terry Smith's racial attitudes. For starters, testimony by several appellants set forth the specific fact that Mr. Smith witnessed Kirk McCoy's abuse of Larry Pittman and did nothing about it.)
It went back to John R. Scannell for his three minute rebuttal. A judge asked Mr. Scannell if he believed that Terry Smith was the only manager. Of course not, these other people were clearly management, they had titles such as supervisor and foreman. They had the power to redress grievances and discipline abusive co-workers and instead, they told our appellants to "go back to work". But hey, they admitted that Terry Smith is management, and here he is telling Shabae Diquon that he thinks of black men as "porch monkeys". There is the old joke: When does a black man become a "nigger"? When he leaves the room. This kind of direct evidence of racial animus is the hardest kind of evidence to get, and here Mr. Diquon and others giving testimony as to this kind of direct evidence. The fact the Terry Smith, the plant manager was telling Mr. Diquon these kinds of things to his face would tend to taint every personnel decision made at the plant.
I want to thank Geocities for allowing me to use their server for free. They provide an immensely valuable service for those of us who could not otherwise obtain access to the public to get our side of the story across.
Comments may be e-mailed to me at [email protected].