Farmer v. FilmTec Corp.

1

Darran Farmer, Plaintiff, v. FilmTec Corporation, and DuPont De Nemours, Inc., Defendants.

No. 22-cv-2974 (KMM/DLM)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

September 19, 2024

ORDER

Katherine Menendez, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Darran Farmer brought this action against his former employer, Defendant FilmTec Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of DuPont De Nemours, Inc. (collectively “FilmTec”) alleging discrimination, interference and retaliation, failure to accommodate, hostile workplace environment, and wrongful discharge under numerous federal and state laws. Compl., ECF No. 1.

In Counts One and Two of Mr. Farmer's complaint, he alleges discrimination on the basis of disability by FilmTec in violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (“ADA”) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. 363A.01 et seq. (“MHRA”), respectively. In Counts Three, Four, and Five, he alleges interference and retaliation in violation of the ADA, MHRA, and the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). Mr. Farmer also claims that FilmTec subjected him to a hostile workplace environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the MHRA in Counts Eight and Nine, respectively. And lastly, in Counts Ten and Eleven, Mr. Farmer alleges retaliation in violation of Title VII and the MHRA.^[1]

FilmTec seeks summary judgment on Mr. Farmer's claims. ECF No. 32. FilmTec argues that (1) Mr. Farmer's claims based on his termination of employment under the ADA and Title VII (Counts I, III, VIII, and X), must be dismissed because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; (2) Mr. Farmer's MHRA claims (Counts II, IV, VII, and IX) are untimely; (3) Mr. Farmer's disability discrimination claims (Counts I and II) fail as a matter of law; (4) Mr. Farmer's ADA and MHRA interference and retaliation claims (Counts III and IV) fail as a matter of law; (5) Mr. Farmer's FMLA interference and retaliation claims (Count V) fail as a matter of law; (7) Mr. Farmer's Title VII and MHRA hostile work environment claims (Counts VIII and IX) fail as a matter of law; and (8) Mr. Farmer's Title VII and MHRA retaliation claims (Counts X and XI) fail as a matter of law.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS FilmTec's motion for summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

Mr Farmer, an African-American male, worked as a Senior Manufacturing Operator in the Aqua40 Department for FilmTec, a company that specializes in water separation and purification solutions, in its Water and Process Solutions division located in Edina, Minnesota. Compl. ¶¶ 8-9, 11, ECF No. 1. Mr. Farmer is a Type 1 diabetic, and his diabetes required him to take occasional breaks from his employment duties, take more frequent bathroom breaks and maintain a more disciplined diet, and it also causes vision issues. ECF No. 47, Ex. 23, Farmer Dep. 65.

Mr. Farmer began working for FilmTec in 2009 through Kelly Temporary Services, Farmer Dep. 63, and on March 28, 2010, FilmTec hired him directly, ECF No. 38-6, Rita Kaluza Decl., Ex. 8, Minn. Employee Wage Notice. Farmer worked for FilmTec for nearly 10 years until his termination. Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10. As essential functions of his position, Farmer occasionally lifted over 50 pounds, lifted and hauled up to 45 pounds, pulled up to 82 pounds, and pushed up to 50 pounds. Kaluza Decl., Manufacturing Operator Job Description, Ex. 7, ECF No. 35-1. At all relevant times, Mr. Farmer reported to his direct supervisor, Maurice Roberts. Farmer Dep. 66.

Farmer's Attempts at a Promotion^[2]

During his employment, Mr. Farmer applied for a position that was posted internally by FilmTec within FilmTec's Membrane Department. Farmer Dep. 69. He did not get the position. Id. Farmer's supervisor, Roberts, indicated that:

[Farmer] actually knew pretty much all of the facets of the job, and from time to time . . . when we needed someone to actually fill . . . those spots . . . [Farmer] was picked . . . to do material handling.

ECF No. 47, Ex. 26, Roberts Dep. 273. Farmer was told by Debra Robertson (“Robertson”), the Unit Manager for Fabrication, that he was denied the promotion because his only motivation for wanting to go to the department was for more money, as opposed to wanting to be an integral part of the membrane team. Farmer Dep. 69. Farmer was also informed by Ms. Robertson that she wanted to keep as many senior operators in her department as possible, since she was new in her role as Operations Leader at the time. Id.

Mr. Farmer also applied to be a Back-Up Lead Technician, a position that was posted internally by FilmTec as well. Id. He did not get the position either. Id. Robertson canceled Mr. Farmer's interview and hired an employee that had left FilmTec four years prior to Robertson's tenure. Id. Clever Barbosa (“Barbosa”), an individual with FilmTec who trained Robertson, informed Mr. Farmer that he would speak with Robertson and told Mr. Farmer that he should have received an interview for the position. Id. After Mr. Farmer's conversation with Barbosa, Robertson called Mr. Farmer to her office and scolded him. Robertson informed Mr. Farmer that she was doing the best she could for the department and that he did not understand the business side of what she was doing. Id. at 70.

April 2020 Ethics Hotline Complaint

According to FilmTec's policies, it investigates reports of suspected violations of law or policy and takes necessary corrective action, and it prohibits retaliation against employees who, in good faith, report suspected misconduct or participate in investigations into suspected misconduct. ECF No. 47, Ex. 1, DuPont Code of Conduct at 6. FilmTec also maintained a policy prohibiting harassment and violence in the workplace. ECF No. 39, Ex. 2, FilmTec Handbook & Policies at 2.

On April 14, 2020, Roberts issued Mr. Farmer a “documented coaching” for leaving his workstation without advising Roberts or a Lead Technician prior to doing so.

ECF No. 47, Luthens Decl., Ex. 4, Documented Coaching. Shortly thereafter, on April 16, 2020, Mr. Farmer filed an anonymous complaint through DuPont's Ethics and Compliance Hotline (the “Ethics Hotline”). Compl. ¶ 13; DuPont Code of Conduct at 6. Any call made by employees to the Ethics Hotline is subsequently transcribed and submitted as a complaint for further action. Farmer Dep. 69. In Mr. Farmer's complaint to the Ethics Hotline, he claimed that he was written up for failing to advise his supervisor that he was leaving work due to illness from diabetes, was passed over for promotions, was treated differently by supervisors for going to the medical department, and was ignored by management. Compl. ¶ 13; April Complaint, Luthens Decl., Ex. 5; Farmer Dep. 69.

Kaluza's Post-April 2020 Hotline Complaint Investigation

On May 8, 2020, Rita Kaluza (“Kaluza”), FilmTec's human resources manager, began investigating the complaint by interviewing second shift leaders. Kaluza Decl., Ex. 10, Investigative Notes. Kaluza conceded that there was a “lack of leadership” on the fourth shift and as a result, a supervisor moved full-time to the shift, but she could not substantiate the other claims. Id.; Compl. ¶¶ 14-15.

May 2020 Ethics Hotline Complaint

On May 18, 2020, Mr. Farmer anonymously contacted the Ethics Hotline again, and this time, Farmer raised additional allegations stating that “1) racist things were posted on the information board; 2) supervisors say the ‘n' word, comment that ‘those people are lazy,' and make ‘chicken and watermelon jokes;' and 3) supervisors make comments about Ramadan and make it difficult for employees to leave their workstations to pray.” Compl. ¶ 16; Luthens Decl., Ex. 5.

Kaluza's Post-May 2020 Hotline Complaint Investigation

On May 20, 2020, Ms. Kaluza began investigating by interviewing twelve FilmTec employees and leaders in the Aqua40 Department. Kaluza Decl., Ex. 10. Kaluza was only able to substantiate the allegation that FilmTec employees posted racist things on the information board as her investigation revealed that a racially insensitive sign where the words “Chinese Origin Virus Infectious Disease” had been handwritten under “COVID” on a notice that had been posted on the manufacturing floor. Compl. ¶¶ 17-18; Kaluza Decl., Ex. 10.

June 2020 Ethics Hotline Complaint

On June 11, 2020, Mr. Farmer contacted the Ethics Hotline anonymously again. Luthens Decl., Ex. 5. He reported that nothing was being done about his previous complaints and that employees involved in the investigation had attempted to ascertain the complainant's identity. Id. He specifically reported two employees, Jeffrey Herr (“Herr”) and William Pace (“Pace”), for using racist language when speaking about supervisor Roberts, who is African American. Farmer Dep. 77. Herr was the only person Mr. Farmer personally heard use racist language in the workplace. Id.

Kaluza's Post-June 2020 Hotline Complaint Investigation

Ms Kaluza interviewed Mr. Farmer and other staff members as part of her investigation into the complaint that same day. Kaluza Decl., Ex. 10. Farmer reported to Kaluza that while he had not heard any supervisor use racial slurs, he had heard his coworkers use derogatory language, though not directed at him. Id. At least two workers said they overheard Herr or Pace using racially offensive words at work especially when referring to Roberts. Id. Apart from that, workers had general misconduct complaints regarding Herr and Pace that were unrelated to allegations that they behaved in a racist manner. Id. In response to their violations of the Code of Conduct's Respect for People guidelines, FilmTec placed Herr and Pace on administrative leave on June 15, 2020, and on ...