Plaintiff Bruton Stephens, Sr., an African-American male, was hired by Defendant City of Dallas as a senior electronic technician in the Transportation Operations Division of the PublicWorks and Transportation Department on December 24, 2003.
Jury Charge 3, ECF No. 105.In 2007, Robert Espinoza (“Espinoza”), Plaintiff’s supervisor, designated Plaintiff “lead technician.”
; Pl.’s App. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. (Stephens Depo Jan. 18, 2011), at App. 207-08, ECF No.34; Trial R., Vol. 3, at 132:20-24, 133:10-14, ECF No. 110. As lead technician, Plaintiff took onadditional responsibilities, including but not limited to reviewing job tickets, processing customer service requests, preparing payroll, and filling in as supervisor when Espinoza was absent.
Pl.’sApp. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. (Stephens Depo Jan 18, 2011), at App. 207-08, 314-15, ECF No. 34;Trial R., Vol. 1, at 106:20-107:6, 108:16-18, 109:1-2, 147:11-25, ECF No. 108;
Vol. 2, at 26:18-27:13, ECF No. 109;
Vol. 3, at 61:7-24, 134:7-135:3, 135:20-25, 136:1-2, ECF No. 110.Before being removed from his lead technician position, Plaintiff complained of, amongother things, race discrimination in the workplace.
Trial R., Vol. 1, at 120:23-25, 134:2-15,136:16-137:13, ECF No. 108;
Vol. 3, at 46:24-47:1, 206:4-8, 208:4-12, ECF No. 110. In March2009, Plaintiff was removed of his lead technician position.
Vol. 1, at 140:1-21;
at Vol. 3, at147:19-22, ECF No. 110; Pl.’s App. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. (Stephens Depo Feb. 7, 2011), at App.336), ECF No. 34. In the months thereafter, Plaintiff filed a number of other grievances andcomplaints related to retaliation and race discrimination.
Jury Charge 3-4, ECF No. 105. As
In considering a motion for judgment as a matter of law “the court must draw all reasonable inferences in
favor of the non-moving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.”
Reeves v.Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
, 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000). “[T]he court should give credence to the evidence favoringthe nonmovant as well as that ‘evidence supporting the moving party that is uncontradicted and unimpeached, at leastto the extent that evidence comes from disinterested witnesses.’”
Case 3:10-cv-00191-O-BN Document 122 Filed 03/25/13 Page 2 of 26 PageID 4156