Bryant v. Gestamp W.Va.

1

ROBERT BRYANT, Plaintiff, v. GESTAMP WEST VIRGINIA, LLC, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-00262

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston

August 24, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

John T. Copenhaver, Jr. Senior United States District Judge

Pending is a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant, Gestamp West Virginia, LLC on May 4, 2023. ECF 36. Also pending is a “Motion for Leave to File Surreply” filed by plaintiff, Robert Bryant, on June 1, 2023. ECF 40.

I. Background

Robert Bryant began working for Gestamp West Virginia, LLC, an automobile parts manufacturer in South Charleston, West Virginia, on or about December 18, 2015, as a Controls Engineer, working in defendant's Hot Stamp Department. See ECF 36-4 Decl. of Elio Gonzalez ¶ 1. Plaintiff was transferred to defendant's Cold Stamp Department in March 2016, where he focused his work on the B-2 line, which utilized Siemens equipment, and where he remained until his inclusion in a reduction in force in May 2020.

The Hot Stamp and Cold Stamp Departments are the two-sub departments within the Press Engineering Department, which works with machines and technology that cut and shape metal. Id. ¶¶ 5-1, 6.

Beginning in March 2020, defendant partially shut down its operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. See ECF 36-7 Decl. of Scott Hughes ¶ 6. During this time, defendant's corporate office implemented a 20% salary reduction for all salaried employees. Id. ¶ 6(b). In mid-to-late April 2020, due to reduced production and revenue projections, defendant's corporate office directed defendant “to implement a reduction in force and provided target numbers of salaried and hourly employees to retain.” Id. ¶ 6(c). Defendant's corporate office instructed that the reduction in force be done not based on seniority, but instead, on “retaining the employees that would be most helpful to serve our customers' needs....” Id.; ECF 361 Decl. of Chris Nottingham ¶ 11(c).

Defendant's management team then met to discuss “the number of salaried and hourly employees that would need to be laid off from each department, based on production needs and the staffing for the department.” ECF 36-7 Decl. of Scott Hughes ¶ 6(d); ECF 36-1 Decl. of Chris Nottingham ¶ 11(d). During these meetings, defendant's management team directed its department heads “to retain the staff that would allow the facility to timely deliver quality parts to our customers.” ECF 36-7 Decl. of Scott Hughes ¶ 6(d).

Defendant's management team determined that two employees from the Press Engineering Department, would be included in the reduction in force, which department was comprised of the following five salaried individuals: Sebastian Manzo and Diana Hernandez (age 26) as Controls Engineers in the Hot Stamp Department Jamie Love (age 45) and the plaintiff (age 58) as Controls Engineers in the Cold Stamp Department; and Jason Barrett as a Process/Press Engineer in the Cold Stamp Department.^[1] ECF 36-7 Decl. of Scott Hughes ¶ 7; ECF 36-1 Decl. of Chris Nottingham ¶ 11(e); ECF 38-5. Elio Gonzalez, who was employed as the Engineering Coordinator of the Press Engineering Department, and who reported to Press Operations Manager, Chris Nottingham, was responsible for supervising the Hot Stamp and Cold Stamp Departments. ECF 36-4 Elio Gonzalez ¶¶ 1, 8. Mr. Gonzalez was tasked with making the initial decision of which two salaried employees from his department would be selected for the reduction in force. ECF 36-4 Elio Gonzalez ¶¶ 1, 8.

In determining whom to include in the reduction in force, Mr. Gonzalez concluded that to remain efficient, one controls engineer from the Hot Stamp Department and one controls engineer from the Cold Stamp Department would need to be retained along with its sole Process/Press Engineer, Jason Barrett. See ECF 36-3 Depo. of Elio Gonzalez at 28:4-14; ECF 36-4 Decl. of Elio Gonzalez ¶ 13.

In the Hot Stamp Department, Mr. Gonzalez's decision to include Ms. Hernandez in the reduction in force was “regretful but easy.” ECF 36-4 Decl. of Elio Gonzalez at ¶13(b). This was because Ms. Hernandez (age 26) had the least amount of experience, while Mr. Manzo “had the most experience of any Hot Stamp Engineer at any of the facilities in Gestamp North America and was an irreplaceable Engineer.” Id. Plaintiff also testified that Mr. Manzo had more experience than any other plant employee with the Hot Stamp. ECF 36-5 Depo. of Robert Bryant at 130:7-9.

The decision on whom to include in the reduction in force in the Cold Stamp Department was “difficult” as both plaintiff (age 58) and Mr. Love (age 45) were “skilled Control Engineers” who “were both very important to our operation.” Id. ¶ 13(c); see also ECF 36-3 Depo. of Elio Gonzalez at 29:20-30:3. In coming to his decision, Mr. Gonzalez created a “decision matrix tool” in chart form and spoke with Chuck Brown, Maintenance Manager, and Mike Rusnak, Cold Stamp Production Coordinator. ECF 36-4 Decl. of Elio Gonzalez ¶¶ 14(a)-(d). After comparing plaintiff and Mr. Love, Mr. Gonzalez concluded that retaining Mr. Love would be more helpful to the Cold Stamp Department due to his expertise in using the Allen Bradley equipment that was predominate in that Department and due to his troubleshooting abilities. ECF 36-4 Decl. of Elio Gonzalez ¶¶ 14-15. It is noted that the Cold Stamp Department contained one production line, the B-2 line, which utilized the Siemens Equipment. ECF 36-1 Decl. of Chris Nottingham ¶ 4.

Mr. Gonzalez then presented his recommendation of including Ms. Hernandez and plaintiff in the reduction in force to his supervisor Chris Nottingham and separately to Scott Hughes, Human Resources Manager. Id. ¶ 17. Mr. Nottingham discussed with Mr. Gonzalez the process he used to reach his recommendations, and ultimately agreed with Mr. Gonzalez. See ECF 36-2 Depo. of Chris Nottingham at 21:11-23:7. After consulting with Mr. Nottingham, Mr. Gonzalez notified Mr. Hughes that Ms. Hernandez and plaintiff had been chosen for the reduction in force. See ECF 36-7 Decl. of Scott Hughes ¶ 8.

On May 8, 2020, Mr. Hughes met with plaintiff to inform him that he had been selected for the salaried employee reduction in force. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff was offered, but rejected, an hourly maintenance technician position in the Press Department. Id.

Following his termination, plaintiff initiated this action on April 5, 2022, by filing his single count complaint, based on age discrimination in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act (“WVHRA”), in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. See ECF 1-1. Defendant then removed this action and invoked the court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are completely diverse. ECF 1 ¶ 11.

Presently before the court is defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF 36) and supporting memorandum of law (ECF 37). Defendant argues plaintiff cannot prove a prima facia case of age discrimination, and even if he can, defendant has provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for plaintiff's inclusion in the reduction in force.

Plaintiff in his response opposing summary judgment claims he has shown a prima facia case of age discrimination, inasmuch as substantially younger employees, Mr. Love (age 45) and Ms. Hernandez (age 26) were retained over him (age 58).^[2]Plaintiff also contends that defendant's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his inclusion in the reduction in force is merely pretextual. See ECF 38.

Defendant's reply asserts that a plaintiff may not prove a prima facia case of age discrimination based solely on a difference in age and that plaintiff has presented no evidence that shows the legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his inclusion in the reduction in force was merely pretextual. See ECF 39.

Subsequently, on June 1, 2023, plaintiff filed the motion for leave to file a surreply, which is opposed by defendant. See ECF 40, 41.

II. Governing Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate “if 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). Material facts are those necessary to establish the elements of a party's cause of action. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

A genuine issue of material fact exists if, in viewing the record and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, a reasonable factfinder could return a verdict for the non-movant. Id. The moving party has the burden of showing -- “that is, pointing out to the district court -- that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). If the movant satisfies this burden, then the non-movant must set forth specific facts as would be admissible in evidence that demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of fact for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); id. at 322-23. A party is entitled to summary judgment if the record as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find in favor of the non-movant. Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991).

Conversely, summary judgment is inappropriate if the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Even if there is no dispute as to the evidentiary facts, summary judgment is also not appropriate where the ultimate factual conclusions to be drawn are in dispute. Overstreet v. Ky. Cent. Life Ins. Co., 950 F.2d 931, 937 (4th Cir. 1991).

A court must neither resolve disputed facts nor weigh the evidence Russell v. Microdyne Corp., 65 F.3d 1229, 1239 (4th...