Deloatch v. Harris Teeter, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75261
D.D.C.2011Background
- plaintiff, African American, worked in Harris Teeter meat department from 2005 to 2009 across stores 83 (VA) and 282 (DC).
- He alleges failures to compensate for overtime and off-the-clock work, discrimination, and FMLA/medical leave violations.
- Company provided an associate guidebook detailing compensation, anti-discrimination, and leave policies; plaintiff claims agency did not follow policies.
- Plaintiff filed February 2010; defendant moved for summary judgment December 2010.
- Court analyzes statute of limitations, proof of unreimbursed work, and discriminatory rationale under Title VII/§1981 and DC HR law.
- Court grants summary judgment for defendant on all asserted claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FLSA overtime claims are timely. | Plaintiff argues some post-2008 unpaid work is compensable. | Claims before 2008 are time-barred unless willful; no willfulness shown. | Partially granted; pre-2008 claims barred; post-2008 claims not sufficiently proven. |
| Whether off-the-clock work evidence supports FLSA claims. | Evidence shows unpaid work for transfers, shifts, training. | Evidence not admissible or insufficient; not supported by records; de minimis. | Granted summary judgment for defendant on FLSA claims due to insufficient evidence. |
| Whether plaintiff’s discrimination claim survives. | BBT program treated him differently (notes, meetings, hours) due to race. | Policy-based, nondiscriminatory explanations; no evidence of pretext. | Summary judgment for defendant on disparate treatment; no viable pretext shown. |
| Whether plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim survives. | Racist remarks and hostile conduct occurred. | Incidents were not severe or pervasive enough to alter terms/conditions. | Summary judgment for defendant on hostile environment claim. |
| Whether FMLA claims (interference and retaliation) survive. | Denied leave for wife and mother; that violated FMLA. | No qualifying serious health conditions or proper notice; retaliation not shown. | Summary judgment for defendant on both FMLA claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; burden shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine disputes require material facts; inferences in movant’s favor)
- Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 328 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1946) (burden shifting to prove amount of uncompensated work; de minimis limits)
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1988) (willful violation standard for FLSA statute of limitations)
- Waterhouse v. District of Columbia, 298 F.3d 989 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (burden framework for discrimination claims under Title VII/DCHRA)