Brooks v. Avancez

LINDA BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. AVANCEZ, Defendant.

Cause No. 1:19-CV-515-HAB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

April 19, 2021

OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant fired Plaintiff after what it claimed was her second incident of threatening physical harm upon another individual in the workplace. Plaintiff disputes the claimed reasons for her firing, and instead alleges that she was discriminated against based on her age and disability. Now before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 54). Plaintiff has filed her Response (ECF No. 65), and Defendant has filed a Reply (ECF No. 70).¹ This matter is now ripe for ruling.

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff is, as of the date of this Opinion and Order, a sixty-year-old African American female. Plaintiff served in the military from 1983 to 2000, when she was honorably discharged. Though she never saw combat, her military service was traumatic: she was sexually assaulted and exposed to racist abuse. As a result, Plaintiff was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") both while she was in the military and after she was discharged. It is this PTSD diagnosis that is the predicate disability for her ADA claims.

Defendant is an auto parts manufacturer located in Roanoke, Indiana. It appears that most, if not all, of Defendant's production goes to the nearby General Motors production facility. Relevant to this case, one of the parts produced by Defendant are vehicle consoles at Defendant's aptly named Console Line. The line has eight different stations and operates on three shifts per day.

Defendant uses the services of a temp agency, Aerotek, to help fill some of its staffing needs. Following a probationary period of ninety days, most temporary employees are hired on by Defendant. Upon being assigned to Defendant, Aerotek employees receive training and orientation on Defendant's production lines. Plaintiff attended Defendant's orientation/training in June 2018. During that orientation, Plaintiff alleges that one of Defendant's employees asked the class participants to state their age. Plaintiff complied. After training and orientation, Plaintiff was assigned to the third shift Console Line. While Plaintiff was the oldest employee on her shift of the Console Line, she was not the oldest employee to work the line for Defendant during calendar years 2018 and 2019.

The parties disagree as to the scope, but everyone agrees that Defendant had a practice of cross-training employees on multiple stations on the Console Line. According to Defendant, the ability to conduct training was based on staffing-related factors, most notably the availability of the trainer and the trainee. In addition, training could be interrupted if production levels did not keep up with GM's supply needs.

It was in this cross-training that Plaintiff first alleges discrimination. Plaintiff asserts that, from June 28, 2018, through October 31, 2018, she was denied the opportunity to train on all the stations because of her age. According to Plaintiff, she was told by her "team lead" that she was not being trained on the stations because "they said she is too old." There is no evidence in therecord as to who "they" were, and Plaintiff admits that she does not know. In any event, a supervisor heard the comment and said that Plaintiff needed to be trained on all stations so that she could rotate assignments per Defendant's company policy. Plaintiff reported this interaction to Defendant through an unsigned complaint filed with HR on October 29, 2018.

After this interaction, Plaintiff admits that she received training on all stations of the Console Line. At some point, although it is not clear from the evidence when, Plaintiff was evaluated to be mostly trained on six of the eight stations on the Console Line. At the time of this evaluation, Plaintiff's level of training was equal to, or higher than, most other employees on the third shift.

The undisputed evidence documents several run-ins between Plaintiff and her co-workers in early 2019. On January 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a hostile work environment complaint asserting that a co-worker was hostile and verbally abusive, telling Plaintiff, "I'm not doing that shit." Plaintiff filed another hostile work environment complaint on February 1, 2019, alleging that a different co-worker was hostile and told Plaintiff, "fuck you." Neither co-worker received a written warning or were otherwise disciplined. Plaintiff also testified at her deposition that her co-workers made more than two, but less than ten, comments that Plaintiff was "old and slow."

Plaintiff met with Chad Pieper, Defendant's HR Manager, on February 7, 2019, to discuss her complaints. Also present at the meeting was Steve McGuire, Plaintiff's shift manager. Plaintiff objected to McGuire's presence at the meeting, but Pieper allowed McGuire to attend. Plaintiff disclosed her PTSD diagnosis during the meeting and advised, "I have PTSD and I can't help what might happen to you." Pieper perceived this as a threat to McGuire and said as much. Pieper prepared and issued a verbal warning to Plaintiff for making a threat. Plaintiff refused to sign the written form acknowledging the warning.

Following the warning, Plaintiff took her concerns to Defendant's CEO, writing a letter addressing Plaintiff's age discrimination complaint, the status of her PTSD diagnosis, as well as her claims of retaliation and harassment. As a result, Defendant's Director of Team Member Relations, Andrea Bouchard, interviewed Plaintiff on February 22, 2019. Plaintiff advised Bouchard of the difficulties Plaintiff was having in her job, including the threats and profanity used by Plaintiff's co-workers. Bouchard asked Plaintiff why she continued to work for Defendant if she was having such a poor experience. Plaintiff responded she liked her job.

On March 11, 2019, video showed Plaintiff bypassing error proofing protocols resulting in a faulty console being sent to GM. The video showed that Plaintiff was called over to a station where a co-worker could not get a part to scan. Plaintiff took the correct part from a shelf, scanned it, and put the correct part back on the shelf without replacing the incorrect part with the correct part on the console. GM notified Defendant of the faulty console and charged Defendant for the error. Plaintiff received a three-day suspension for bypassing quality control procedures and was told that any further violations of Defendant's policies would result in termination. Plaintiff did not sign the written notice of the suspension.

Plaintiff characterizes the video differently. She denies making any error. Instead, she claims that she relied on her co-worker to properly process the parts. Plaintiff notes that the co-worker was not disciplined in any way for the incident. Indeed, Plaintiff seems to question whether any error was made at all. She states that she asked Defendant to produce the "CSN Number," whatever that is, that would have verified an error. According to Plaintiff, no CSN number was ever produced. The same day she was suspended, Plaintiff emailed Bouchard to follow up on her prior discrimination complaints and to request that the "unjust suspension" be revoked.

May 9, 2019, marked another significant incident in Plaintiff's employment. A dispute arose among the assemblers on the Console Line regarding work assignments. Plaintiff and a co-worker engaged in a verbal dispute: Plaintiff claims the co-worker cursed at her; the co-worker claims that Plaintiff said, "we can take it outside." Plaintiff filed a complaint regarding the incident and McGuire, the shift manager, emailed management to ask that the co-worker be written up for her conduct.

As part of the investigation into the May 9 incident, Defendant's HR Administrator, Kathleen Marburger, interviewed Plaintiff. Also in attendance were union committee person Teresa Braden and union representative Todd McKibben. Both Marburger and Braden believed that Plaintiff threatened McKibben during the interview. While the exact words Plaintiff used are not clear from the record, it appears that Defendant believed Plaintiff said something to the effect that she could harm McKibben outside of the workplace. For his part, McKibben denies being threatened. Nonetheless, Marburger immediately suspended Plaintiff during the meeting.

During the suspension, Defendant reviewed its policies and procedures to determine the appropriate disciplinary step. Defendant ultimately terminated Plaintiff on May 24, 2019. The termination paperwork, which Plaintiff refused to sign, identified three grounds for termination: threats; conduct and attitude; and insubordination.

The UAW filed a grievance on behalf of Plaintiff over her termination. As part of its investigation into the grievance, the union was able to substantiate some of the stated grounds for the termination. The investigation revealed that Plaintiff did make the statement "I have PTSD and I can't help what might happen to you" in the February 7, 2019, meeting, and further that she made a threat to McKibben during the May 9, 2019, meeting. As a result of its investigation, the union elected not to pursue arbitration of the grievance.C. Legal Analysis

1. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is warranted when "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The non-moving party must marshal and present the Court with evidence on which a reasonable jury could rely to find in their favor. Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc., 621 F.3d 651, 654 (7th Cir. 2010). A court must deny a motion for summary judgment when the nonmoving party presents admissible evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact. Luster v. Ill. Dep't of Corrs., 652 F.3d 726, 731 (7th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). A court's role in deciding a motion for...