J. FREDERICK MOTZ, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff has brought this action for employment discrimination against his former employer. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss, to which it has appended an affidavit. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion. Defendant's motion will be treated as one for summary judgment and, as such, will be granted.
Plaintiff asserts claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985. Since defendant did not act under color of state law, it is clear that plaintiff has no viable claim under § 1983. Likewise, plaintiff makes no express allegations of a conspiracy or factual allegations from which a conspiracy could be inferred as necessary to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985.
Plaintiff alleges that he was discharged in retaliation for reporting three separate incidents: a physical attack by a white co-employee (plaintiff is African American), a burglary of his locker, and the placing of a noose in his toolbox. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant failed to investigate each of these incidents properly.
In his complaint plaintiff alleges that the assault occurred in January 1998. In fact, as established beyond dispute by a union grievance report plaintiff filed, the incident occurred on December 12, 1996.
The record establishes that there is no support for plaintiff's allegations. The materials submitted by defendant, which are not contradicted by plaintiff, demonstrate that defendant conducted thorough investigations into all three of the incidents. As to the alleged assault, witnesses identified by plaintiff were interviewed and none of them supported his claim that the white employee deliberately hit him. Rather, defendant concluded from the investigation the white employee accidentally fell into plaintiff when both employees were in the process of punching out at the end of their work day. Absolutely no action was taken against plaintiff for reporting the incident.
Plaintiff's allegation that his locker was burglarized involves an incident in which he alleges that burning glasses he used during the course of his work were stolen from his locker. When this was reported to the plant superintendent, the superintendent asked several of plaintiff's co-workers if they knew anything about the missing glasses. No one knew anything. Plaintiff then asked the superintendent if defendant would replace his missing glasses. The superintendent said that since they were his personal glasses, defendant would not reimburse him for a new pair but would pay the difference to make them safety glasses. Defendant also offered to provide welding shields. In any event, again no adverse action was taken against plaintiff. Although plaintiff alleges that he was suspended three days without pay, in fact he was (at his request) excused from work for three days in order to allow him to obtain new glasses.
Again, plaintiff has the date of the incident wrong. He alleges in his complaint that it occurred in March 1998. In fact, it occurred on or about February 17, 1998.
The third alleged incident occurred on April 3, 1998. Plaintiff claims to have found and reported a small noose that had been placed on his toolbox. Although plaintiff claims that the incident was not investigated, the record establishes that in fact it was. Defendant was unable to establish if the incident occurred and, if so, who was responsible for it. However, defendant did take action to inform employees that defendant has a "zero tolerance" for racial remarks or slurs and that any employee found to be engaging in such conduct would be immediately terminated.
There was a closer temporal relationship between plaintiff's reporting of the noose incident and the termination of plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff reported the incident on April 3, 1998, and he was discharged on June 3, 1998. However, temporal sequence is not alone sufficient to establish that there is a causal connection between an alleged act of retaliation and an event giving rise to the alleged retaliation. Williams v. Ceberonics, Inc., 871 F.2d 452, 457 (4th Cir. 1989). That is particularly true where, as in this case, the evidence establishes that there is an entirely independent reason for the action taken by defendant. The uncontradicted record demonstrates that plaintiff was discharged because he had received five written warnings for violations of various work rules within the calendar year. Under the collective bargaining agreement between plaintiff's union and defendant, this was a cause for discharge. After he received his fourth warning, plaintiff was warned that if he received another warning he would be immediately dismissed from employment. Despite that fact, he did receive a fifth warning for quitting work early. His discharge immediately followed.
It was not until after he was discharged that plaintiff filed any charges with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations or the EEOC. Thus, the termination of his employment could not have been in retaliation for the filing of such charges.
A separate order entering judgment on behalf of defendant is being entered herewith.
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is, this _____ day of January 2000
ORDERED
1. Defendant's motion to dismiss is treated as one for summary judgment and, as such, is granted; and
2. Judgment is entered in favor of defendant against plaintiff.