A federal judge has dismissed a discrimination lawsuit against Union Pacific Railroad Co., stating the plaintiff failed to prove he was a victim of racial discrimination and retaliation.
Judge Stephen P. McGlynn in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois issued a summary judgment Wednesday dismissing the case brought by Le’Mon Bass.
Background
Bass, an African-American employee of the company, accused Union Pacific of racial discrimination and retaliation after the company had not promoted him in 26 years.
A complaint he filed June 9, 2022 noted Bass had previously alleged racial discrimination and retaliation at Union Pacific.
The complaint states that Bass began working at Southern Pacific Railroad in May 1994 and was promoted to locomotive engineer in 1996. After the acquisition of Southern Pacific, he began working for Union Pacific in November 1998. Bass has held the position of locomotive engineer for approximately 26 years, despite numerous attempts to advance.
In May 2004, Bass filed a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights alleging racial discrimination and retaliation were behind his lack of a promotion. Since then, he has repeatedly reported racial discrimination.
In February 2019, Bass was removed from service by Union Pacific due to “fitness for duty” claims. After requesting to come back to work in June 2019 with his doctor’s approval, Bass accused Union Pacific of failing to process his return in a timely manner and delaying his return to work.
“Similarly situated non-black employees were not treated in this manner and were given reasonable accommodation in order to return to work,” the complaint alleges.
The complaint lists over 40 positions that Bass applied for at the company since 2005. Of all the positions he applied for, he was interviewed approximately four times.
The plaintiff filed another charge of discrimination with the Illinois Department of Human Rights on Jan. 29, 2021. On March 14, 2022, the department mailed Bass a notice informing him of the right to sue.
The allegations
The complaint Bass filed in June 2022 stated he was:
- Denied a promotion in retaliation in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- Discriminated against based on race in violation of the same law.
- Retaliated against and discriminated against in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act.
He sought damages to be determined at trial and requested that Union Pacific “take such affirmative action as is necessary to ensure that the effects of these unlawful employment practices are eliminated and do not continue to affect Plaintiff’s employment and promotional opportunities.”
Bass asked the court to direct Union Pacific to place him in the position he would have been promoted to if not for alleged discriminatory and retaliatory treatment. He also asked for all earnings he would have received, including wages and other lost benefits.
Defense responds
In a court order filed Nov. 15, 2022, 31 of the 43 listed positions that the plaintiff applied for since 2005 were stricken from the complaint because they fell outside the 300-day time frame for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission/Illinois Department of Human Rights charge of discrimination.
In UP’s answer on Dec. 6, 2022, the railroad agreed that the plaintiff had applied for the remaining 12 positions but denied all allegations of discrimination or retaliation.
Union Pacific said its actions with regard to Bass’ employment were taken for legitimate and nondiscriminatory, nonretaliatory reasons. Furthermore, UP said it has a widely disseminated anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy.
“Defendant has at all times exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any alleged harassing or discriminatory terms and conditions of employment and Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative and/or corrective opportunities and procedures provided by Defendant, or to otherwise avoid the harm about which he now complains,” Union Pacific stated, requesting that the case be dismissed.
Conclusion
In granting dismissal of the case, McGlynn concluded that a reasonable jury could not find that Bass was qualified for the positions he sought as he did not have the prerequisite qualifications.
McGlynn stated that while the court had empathy for Bass’ frustration about not being promoted, he had not met the burden of proof demonstrating he was discriminated against.
Attorneys for Bass and Union Pacific did not immediately respond to FreightWaves’ request for comment.