Noted for
LARRY E. PITTMAN and SYLVESTER )
PITTMAN, MICHAEL PITTMAN, ) No.
99-2-52345-8 KNT
TERRANCE A. DAVIS, KEITH KERN, )
YOLANDA ESKRIDGE, MICHAEL ) RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
DAVIS, GREGORY CODY, DAVID ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
LISTIOWEL ABRUQUAH, ARTHUR ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DISMISS
JOSEPH A. DONKOR, DARREL CODY, )
MARY COLEMAN, ERIC ARHIN, )
SHABAE DIQUAN, SIDNEY LANIER, )
RE-LASHIA SEARLES, JAMES GOODE, )
CURTIS HOLLIS, and BENJAMIN )
BARNES, individually, )
)
plaintiffs, )
v. )
)
a
defendant. )
____________________________________)
Plaintiffs
LARRY E. PITTMAN, et al, through their undersigned attorney, respond in
opposition to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiff
Larry Pittman. The plaintiff hereby
incorporates by reference, the facts set forth and the legal authorities cited
and argued in the Standards for Summary Judgment, the Material Facts, and the
Relevant Substantive Law sections of the
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 the Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs Abruquah, Barnes, Forest,
Kilcrease,
and Hollis; and in Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs Michael Davis, Joe Donker, Yolanda Eskridge and
Sidney Lanier (Plaintiffs’ Response I); the facts set forth and legal
authorities cited and argued in the Material Facts with Respect to Plaintiffs
Mary Coleman, Darrel Cody, and Gregory Cody and the Relevant Substantive Law
sections of the
Response in Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs Mary Coleman, Darrel Cody and Greg Cody
(Plaintiffs’ Response II); and the facts set forth and legal authorities cited
and argued in the Material Facts with Respect
to Plaintiffs Terrance Davis, Shabae Diquan, Keith Kern, and Eric Arhin; the
New Non-Plaintiff Declarations; Other Non-Plaintiff Declarations; and the
Relevant Substantive Law sections of the
Response in Opposition to the
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs Terrance Davis,
Shabae
Diquan and Keith Kern, and to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Eric Arhin
and Request for Sanctions (Plaintiffs’ Response III).
THE
MATERIAL FACTS WITH RESPECT TO PLAINTIFF LARRY PITTMAN
These
facts are summarized as follows:
Plaintiffs’
Response I page 9 lines 17-22, Nathan Kilcrease witnessed Kirk McCoy assault
Mr. Pittman and call him racially inappropriate terms in the presence of Pete
DeWitt.
Plaintiffs’
Response I pages 16-18. Dave Horn and
Terry Smith told Mr. Pittman that he was not going to get any raises,
promotions, or transfers. Terry Smith
threw his applications away. He was not
paid at the higher rates of pay for work which the union contract provided
higher rates of pay. The
union grievance
procedure was ineffective and he was assessed occurrences and fired in
retaliation to filing the grievance with the union. Terry Smith told him that he had no rights
three days before he was fired.
Previously Kirk McCoy taunted Mr. Pittman into quitting after having him
perform a particularly degrading task.
Kirk McCoy repeatedly physically assaulted Mr. Pittman and called him
racially offensive names in the presence of Terry Smith, Mark Wallace, Tom
Butler, Doug Nance, and numerous other employees. Mr. Smith and Mr. Wallace told Mr. Pittman
that he would be fired if he fought back. Pete DeWitt and Dave Horn refused to
do anything about it.
Plaintiffs’
Response II page 5 lines 26-27. Greg
Cody witnessed Kirk McCoy tell Larry Pittman that he not getting a job in the
red meat department that was posted. At
page 6 lines 2-3, Mary Coleman witnessed herself, Larry Pittman and Keith Kern
apply for jobs in the red meat department.
All the black employees were turned down, the white employees got these
positions. At page 8 lines 12-13,
documents indicate that Larry Pittman received 1 1/2 occurrences for only one
absence.
Plaintiffs’
Response III page 6 lines 16-22. In the
presence of Kirk McCoy and Larry Pittman, Terry Smith rudely told Shabae
Diquan, “We’ll hire another nigger when we want one.” At page lines 21-22, Larry Shockley, a former
employee who is white, observed Robert Thomas treat Larry Pittman and Keith
Kern disrespectfully. At page 10 lines
16-17 Ron Goodar observed hostility to blacks but no hostility to whites and
Asians. They were particularly harsh
with Larry Pittman. Both Mr. Smith and
Mr. McCoy called him and Mr. Pittman “boy” and other demeaning terms. At page 1 lines 18-22, Denise Haines
witnessed a number of adverse employment actions taken against Larry Pittman
and other black employees. And at the
pages 11-12, Terry Cramer declared that a white woman, Shirley Grennan, was
forced to take a machine operator job she did not want while this same position
was denied to Larry Pittman who wanted it.
In
his new
Declaration of Larry Pittman in Response to Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment to Dismiss Larry Pittman he declares facts under penalty of
perjury that directly contradicts some of the facts set forth by the defendant
and he confirms the relevant facts set forth previously.
GIVEN
THE ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, THIS MOTION IS FRIVOLOUS
CONCLUSION
For
these reasons, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiff
Larry Pittman should be denied.
RESPECTFULLY
SUBMITTED,
____________________________________
Paul
H. King WSBA
#7370
Attorney for Plaintiff
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.