Chapman v. Olymbec U.S.

1

AMBER CHAPMAN, Plaintiff, v. OLYMBEC USA, LLC, Defendant.

No. 18-cv-2842

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

March 7, 2023

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Plaintiff Amber Chapman brings this action for disability discrimination and retaliation against Defendant Olymbec USA LLC (“Olymbec”). (ECF No. 8.) Before the Court is Olymbec's October 14, 2022 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 112.) Plaintiff responded on November 14 2022, and Defendant replied on November 18, 2022. (ECF Nos 119, 126.) For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

I. Background

Olymbec is a property management company that owns and manages a portfolio of industrial, office, retail, and residential properties. (ECF No. 8 at ¶ 6; No. 29 at ¶ 6.) In August 2016, Olymbec hired Plaintiff to work as a dispatch coordinator. (ECF No. 120 at ¶ 1.) In July 2017, Plaintiff was promoted to administrative assistant. (Id. at ¶ 2.) At various times, Plaintiff worked under the supervision of Jordana Berger and Jenny Cupp. (ECF No. 119-3, Pl. Decl. ¶¶ 1-7.) Early on, Plaintiff received positive reviews of her work and was called an “amazing employee” who was “doing a great job.” (ECF No. 119-1.) Later, however, Olymbec began to find fault with Plaintiff's workplace conduct. The nature and details of the disciplinary incidents that arose are disputed by the parties.

According to Olymbec, during the week of June 26, 2017, Plaintiff accessed confidential information about her coworkers, including salary data, and disclosed that information to other employees. (ECF No. 112-1 at PageID 1314.) Plaintiff was issued a formal, written reprimand. (ECF No. 119-12.) Plaintiff does not directly dispute that she accessed her coworkers' salary information, but argues that she should not have been disciplined because she was authorized to access employee files and because discussion of salary information is protected by law. (ECF No. 119 at PageID 2053-54.)

Olymbec alleges that Plaintiff was insubordinate on January 15 and 22, 2018, by balking at or refusing to complete assigned tasks. (ECF No. 112-1 at PageID 1315.) In one instance, Olymbec says, Plaintiff responded to being assigned a task by saying “I do not want to do that.” (ECF No. 119-4 at 1-2.) Berger allegedly orally admonished Plaintiff but did not issue a written reprimand at that time. (ECF No. 115-1, Berger Dep. 53:6-22.)

Plaintiff disputes that she actually refused any task or that she was given any oral admonition on January 15 or 22. (ECF No. 119-3, Pl. Decl. ¶¶ 23-24.) Plaintiff instead says that, when given additional tasks then, she said that she could not complete her already assigned tasks and the additional work, statements that were accepted without reproach by her superiors at the time. (Id.)

On January 29, 2018, Plaintiff had a meeting with Berger and Cupp. (ECF No. 120 at ¶¶ 11-12.) Olymbec contends the meeting was disciplinary and that Plaintiff had been overheard earlier that day making negative comments about Cupp. (ECF No. 115-1, Berger Dep. 57:4-15; No. 119-4 at 2.) Because the meeting was held late in the afternoon, Olymbec says the discussion was not finished by the close of business and Plaintiff was told she would receive a written reprimand the next day. (ECF No. 115-1, Berger Dep. 36:1-19.)

Plaintiff tells a different story. According to Plaintiff, the meeting on January 29, 2018, was not disciplinary and instead focused on Plaintiff's heavy workload. (ECF No. 119-3, Pl. Decl. ¶¶ 13-14.) Berger and Cupp observed that Plaintiff had lately been upset and unhappy in the workplace and offered to modify Plaintiff's duties to allow her to continue working at the company without being overwhelmed. (Id.) At the conclusion of the January 29 meeting, Plaintiff says she was not told about and did not expect to receive any disciplinary action. (Id. at ¶ 17.)

The evening of January 29, at 9:49 PM, Plaintiff sent an email to Berger with the subject line “A Piece to the Puzzle.” (ECF No. 119-6.) The email disclosed that Plaintiff had been struggling with depression and had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. (Id.) In her message, Plaintiff said that part of the reason she might have seemed unhappy or upset in the workplace was that her regimen of mental health medications had recently been modified. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, after she sent this email, “everything changed.” (ECF No. 119-3, Pl. Decl. ¶ 18.) When Plaintiff visited Berger the next day, Berger became hostile and issued Plaintiff a written reprimand recharacterizing the supposedly anodyne workload issues from January 15 and 22 as acts of insubordination. (Id. at ¶¶ 22-24.) Addressing the allegation that Plaintiff made negative statements about Cupp on January 29, Plaintiff says that Berger simply “made this up” from whole cloth. (Id. at ¶ 25.)

Later that week, on February 1, 2018, Plaintiff asked to leave work early, and her request was approved by Berger. (ECF No. 41 ¶¶ 16, 18.) The parties dispute what justification Plaintiff gave when she asked for permission for an early departure. Plaintiff contends that she asked to leave to pick up her kids and run some “personal errands.” (Id. at ¶ 16.) Olymbec says that Plaintiff, in asking to leave, said that there was a medical emergency concerning Plaintiff's father-in-law and that no one was available to pick her children up from the school bus at 2:45 PM. (Id.)

It is not disputed that Plaintiff left work around 2:15 PM and went to the Memphis office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) to file a charge of discrimination against Olymbec. (Id. at ¶¶ 20-21.) The EEOC's Memphis office is located at 1407 Union Avenue, a property managed by Olymbec. (Id. at ¶¶ 21-22.) While there, Plaintiff ran into a coworker, Shirley Mason. (Id. at ¶ 23.) After talking with Plaintiff, Mason sent an email to Berger in which Mason said her conversation with Plaintiff “left [Mason] with [the] impression [Plaintiff] was visiting [the] EEOC which is on the 9th floor.” (Id. at ¶¶ 26-27; ECF No. 119-9.)

The next day, February 2, 2018, Olymbec, through Berger, fired Plaintiff. (ECF No. 41 ¶¶ 29-30.) The parties dispute the reason for the termination. Plaintiff contends that Berger's exact words were “you breached my trust for going to the EEOC at 1407 Union and for filing a discrimination charge.” (ECF No. 114-1, Pl. Dep. 108:24-109:4.) Olymbec contends that Berger terminated Plaintiff for being dishonest and breaching Berger's trust. (ECF No. 41 ¶ 28.)

On December 7, 2018, Plaintiff brought claims against Olymbec for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12117, and the Tennessee Disability Act (“TDA”), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 8-50-103 - 104. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on February 20, 2019. (ECF No. 8.) Olymbec answered on November 12, 2019. (ECF No. 29.) Olymbec now moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims for disability discrimination, contending, among other arguments, that Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination.^[1](ECF No. 112-1 at PageID 1303-04.)

II. Jurisdiction and Choice of Law

The Court has federal question jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts have original jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Because the ADA is a federal statute, Plaintiff's ADA claims arise under the laws of the United States. (See ECF No. 8 at 5.)

Plaintiff's TDA claims, although arising under state rather than federal law, derive from a “common nucleus of operative fact” with Plaintiff's ADA claims. United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966); see also Soehnlen v. Fleet Owners Ins. Fund, 844 F.3d 576, 588 (6th Cir. 2016) . The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the TDA claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

State substantive law applies to state law claims brought in federal court. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938). Where, as here, there is no dispute that a certain state's substantive law applies, the court will not conduct a choice of law analysis sua sponte. See GBJ Corp. v. E. Ohio Paving Co., 139 F.3d 1080, 1085 (6th Cir. 1998). The parties agree in their respective motions and memoranda that Tennessee substantive law applies to Plaintiff's TDA claims and ground their arguments accordingly. (ECF No. 112-1 at PageID 1306; No. 119 at PageID 2056.) The Court will apply Tennessee substantive law to Plaintiff's TDA claims.

III. Standard of Review

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a court must grant a motion for summary judgment “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.” The moving party can meet this burden by showing that the nonmoving party, having had sufficient opportunity for discovery, lacks evidence to support an essential element of her case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1); Peeples v. City of Detroit, 891 F.3d 622, 630 (6th Cir. 2018).

When confronted with a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute for trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). “A ‘genuine' dispute exists when the plaintiff presents ‘significant probative evidence' ‘on which a reasonable jury could return a verdict for her.'” EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753, 760 (6th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (quoting Chappell v. City of Cleveland 585 F.3d 901, 913 (6th Cir. 2009)). The nonmoving party must do more than simply “show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material...