Dumas v. Hurley Med. Ctr.

905 F.Supp.2d 775

Lowana Shanell DUMAS, Plaintiff,

v.HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 10–12661.

United States District Court,

E.D. Michigan,

Southern Division.

Oct. 29, 2012.

Racine M. Miller, We Fight the Law, PLLC, Southfield, MI, for Plaintiff.

Joan N. Pierson, Sean M. Siebigteroth, Williams Firm, Grand Blanc, MI, Thomas L. Kent, City of Flint Department of Law, Flint, MI, Austin W. Garrett, Richard G. Mack, Miller Cohen, P.L.C., Detroit, MI, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CITY OF FLINT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ROBERT H. CLELAND, District Judge.

Pending before the court is Defendant City of Flint's (the “City's”) renewed motion for summary judgment, in which the City argues that Plaintiff Lowana Dumas's claims against it must be dismissed because she is unable to show that an employment relationship existed between her and the City. The motion has been fully briefed, and the court heard oral argument on June 27, 2012. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons stated below, the City's motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of Plaintiff's employment as a laboratory clerk at Hurley, a public hospital in Flint, Michigan. Plaintiff claims she was discriminated against because she is a woman, multi-racial, and because of her mental and physical impairments. Hurley employees allegedly harassedPlaintiff on a daily basis about her physical appearance, using racial slurs. After filing complaints against her co-employees, Plaintiff's supervisor, union representative, and Hurley's Equal Employment Officer allegedly treated Plaintiff in a hostile manner and began making arbitrary changes to Plaintiff's working conditions in hopes she would voluntarily quit. Such changes included requiring Plaintiff to use the public restroom instead of the private employee restroom, switching her from second to third shift, and expecting her to meet a quota that Plaintiff was informed at her employment interview would not exist. Plaintiff alleges that the harassment culminated in her receiving three disciplinary reports and, as a result, her termination. Plaintiff's employment with Hurley lasted from August 2007 until December 2007.

Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on July 6, 2010, and filed her most recent amended complaint on February 22, 2012, asserting retaliatory discharge, hostile work environment, and employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., (“ADA”), and the Michigan Elliot–Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws 37.2101 et seq., (“ELCRA”), against the City, Hurley, and individual employees of Hurley. Plaintiff has also pled a hybrid § 301 claim under the Labor Management Relations Act against Hurley and AFSCME, the union that represented Plaintiff under the collective bargaining agreement entered into between Hurley and the union. The City has moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff is unable to establish that the City was her “employer,” a necessary requirement to prevail on each of her claims against it.

Relevant to a determination of whether the City constituted Plaintiff's “employer” under the employment discrimination laws is the relationship that exists between the City and Hurley. Hurley is owned by the City and is accounted for in the City's “Comprehensive Annual Financial Report” as an enterprise fund. (Bawa Decl. § 3, Dkt. # 139–2.) Management and supervision of Hurley has been delegated to the Board of Hospital Managers (“Board”), a multi-member body established by the City of Flint Charter, (City of Flint Charter § 6–201, Dkt. # 141–2), and whose members are appointed and removed by the Mayor and City Council of Flint, ( id. at § 6–101(B)(3).) The Charter provides that the Board “shall appoint a Director for each of the City Hospital facilities, who shall serve at its pleasure, and a Personnel Director, subject to confirmation by the Mayor, and serving at the pleasure of the Board.” ( Id. at § 6–202(C).) The Board has the discretion to appoint a comptroller, director of nursing, and assistant hospital director for each of the city-owned hospitals. ( Id.) Although Hurley is owned by the City and managed by a multi-member body established by the City Charter, Hurley apparently does not share common offices, record keeping, or bank accounts with the City. (Smith Aff. ¶ 6, Dkt. # 141–4.)

II. STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is proper when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party must first show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Plant v. Morton Int'l, Inc., 212 F.3d 929, 934 (6th Cir.2000) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, who “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Electric Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

The nonmoving party must put forth enough evidence to show that there exists a genuine issue to be decided at trial. Plant, 212 F.3d at 934 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). “[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (internal citations omitted). Summary judgment is not appropriate when “the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury.” Id. at 251–52, 106 S.Ct. 2505. When deciding summary judgment motions, “the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.” Sagan v. United States, 342 F.3d 493, 497 (6th Cir.2003) (citing Matsushita Electric Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)). The court does not weigh the evidence to determine the truth of the matter, but rather to determine if the evidence creates a genuine issue for trial. Sagan, 342 F.3d at 497 (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505).

III. DISCUSSION

A necessary element of each of Plaintiff's claims against the City is a showing that an employment relationship existed between her and the City. See42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a) (Title VII); Morris v. Oldham Cnty. Fiscal Ct., 201 F.3d 784, 795 (6th Cir.2000) (observing that “Congress chose to limit Title VII liability to employers only”); 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A) (ADA); Swallows v. Barnes & Noble Book Stores, Inc., 128 F.3d 990, 992 (6th Cir.1997) (holding that in order to establish liability under the ADA, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was an employer within the meaning of the statute); Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(1) (ELCRA); Seabrook v. Mich. Nat'l Corp., 206 Mich.App. 314, 315–16, 520 N.W.2d 650 (Mich.Ct.App.1994) (affirming state trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant on an ELCRA claim because the plaintiff failed to show that an employment relationship existed between her and the defendant). In its motion for summary judgment, the City argues that Plaintiff is unable to make such a showing.

Plaintiff does not argue that the City was her direct employer. Instead, she contends that Defendants Hurley and the City, despite being ostensibly independent entities, constitute a single enterprise for purposes of Title VII, ADA, and ELCRA liability. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the two entities are “so interrelated that they constitute a single employer subject to liability under” the relevant statutes. Swallows, 128 F.3d at 993.

Plaintiff's argument is founded on numerous Sixth Circuit decisions which have held, at least in cases involving private companies, that a defendant which does not directly employ a plaintiff may nevertheless be liable under the “single employer” or “integrated enterprise” doctrine. See, e.g., id.;York v. Tenn. Crushed Stone Ass'n, 684 F.2d 360 (6th Cir.1982). Under this doctrine, courts look to the following four factors when determining whether separate entities should be treated as an “integrated enterprise” for purposes of establishing a plaintiff's employer: “(1) interrelation of operations; (2) common management; (3) centralized control of labor relations and personnel; and (4) common ownership and financial control.” Swallows, 128 F.3d at 994.

The doctrine, however, finds its provenance in National Labor Relations Act jurisprudence, a statute regulating the labor relations of private entities, and was only later applied by the Sixth Circuit, and many of its sister circuits, to Title VII and ADA claims that also involved private entities. See York, 684 F.2d at 362;Schwarz v. Berrien Springs–Police Dep't, No. 1:98–CV–88, 1999 WL 819639, at *8, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 12134, at *25 (W.D.Mich. Aug. 5, 1999) (observing that the Sixth Circuit has looked to the “integrated enterprise” doctrine in cases involving private employers); see also Lyes v. City of Riviera Beach, Fl., 166 F.3d 1332, 1342 (11th Cir.1999) (compiling cases from numerous circuits applying the doctrine in the context of Title VII). As one might expect, “a test designed to operate in the context of private entities does not fit well cases involving governmental entities.” Lyes, 166 F.3d at 1342;see also Trevino v. Celanese Corp., 701 F.2d 397, 404 n. 10 (5th Cir.1983) (“[T]he [“integrated enterprise”] standard is not readily applicable to governmental subdivisions, for it was ‘developed by the National Labor Relations Board to determine whether...