Love v. St. Jude Children's Research Hosp.

1

DANNY R. LOVE, Plaintiff, v. ST. JUDE CHILDREN'S RESEARCH HOSPITAL, Defendant.

No. 20-cv-2813-SHL-tmp

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

March 11, 2022

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TU M PHAM Chief United States Magistrate Judge

On November 9, 2020, plaintiff Danny R. Love filed a pro se complaint against his former employer, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (“St. Jude”) alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Using a form provided by the Clerk's Office to assist pro se litigants asserting employment discrimination claims Love checked boxes alleging discrimination based on race and gender/sex, and unlawful retaliation. (Id. at 3-4.) Presently before the court is St. Jude's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on November 1, 2021.^[1] (ECF No. 3.) Love filed a response on November 18, 2021, an opposition to St. Jude's statement of undisputed material facts on November 22, 2021, and his own statement of undisputed material facts on November 23, 2021. (ECF Nos. 34-36.) On December 3, 2021, St. Jude replied and filed an opposition to Love's undisputed statement of facts. (ECF Nos. 38-39.)

For the reasons below, the undersigned recommends that St. Jude's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted.

I. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

A. Summary Judgment Briefing

As an initial matter, although Love filed a response that addresses St. Jude's statement of undisputed material facts, as well as his own statement of facts, none of his filings include citations to the record. (ECF Nos. 35-37.) Local Rule 56.1 requires that a party opposing a motion for summary judgment “must respond to each fact set forth by the movant by either: (1) agreeing that the fact is undisputed; (2) agreeing that the fact is undisputed for the purpose of ruling on the motion for summary judgment only; or (3) demonstrating that the fact is disputed.” LR 56.1(b). Furthermore, “[e]ach disputed fact must be supported by specific citation to the record.” Id.

Similarly, Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a party support or challenge factual assertions by:

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or

(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). When a party fails to properly challenge an opposing party's assertion of fact, Rule 56(e)(2) permits the court to “consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2); see also LR 56.1(d) (“Failure to respond to a moving party's statement of material facts . . . within the time periods provided by these rules shall indicate that the asserted facts are not disputed for purposes of summary judgment.”). The court need not consider any unsupported factual assertions.^[2] See id.; see also Gunn v. Senior Servs. of N. Ky., 632 Fed.Appx. 839, 847 (6th Cir. 2015) (“‘[C]onclusory and unsupported allegations, rooted in speculation,' are insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact for trial.”) (quoting Bell v. Ohio State Univ., 351 F.3d 240, 253 (6th Cir. 2003)). Accordingly, the statement of undisputed material facts filed by St. Jude, which are supported by sworn declarations and/or citations to the record, are deemed undisputed for the purposes of resolving this summary judgment motion.

B. Love's Employment History with St. Jude

Danny Love was hired by St. Jude as an Affiliate Financial Administrator in the Affiliate Program Office (“APO”) on December 8, 2014. (ECF No. 31-3 at 1)(citing Pl.'s Dep. at p. 21 lines 22-25, p. 22 lines 1-5). The APO manages the relationship between St. Jude and eleven affiliated hospitals or clinics in cities other than Memphis with whom St. Jude has contracts. At these hospitals patients can receive treatment without coming physically to St. Jude. (Id.)(citing Pl.'s Dep. at p. 22 lines 23-25, p. 23 lines 1-11). Love's primary job responsibilities related to processing affiliates' invoices pursuant to the affiliates' contracts with St. Jude, ensuring payment of invoices, and conducting a quarterly invoice review where he summarized the invoices, their payment, and the effect on the affiliates' budgets, among other finance-related responsibilities. (Id. at 2)(citing Pl.'s Dep. at p. 24 lines 7-25, p. 25 lines 1-9; Ex. 3 to Pl.'s Dep.).

Love's supervisor at the time of his hiring was Cindy Burleson (a white female), the then Administrative Director of the APO, who left St. Jude in September 2017. (Id.)(citing Pl.'s Dep. at p. 22 lines 12-15, p. 23 lines 5-12). When Burleson left, Love was briefly supervised by Carolyn Russo, M.D., the Medical Director of the APO (a white female). (Id.)(citing Pl.'s Dep. at p. 23 lines 1-4 and 15-19). In January 2018, Edna Patterson (a black female) was hired as the Administrative Manager of the APO and became Love's supervisor.^[3] (Id.)(citing Pl.'s Dep. at p. 23 lines 20-22). Patterson conducted Love's annual performance review in September 2018, referring to his work for the year, and Love did not make any comments disputing that Patterson was the appropriate person to perform his annual review. (Id.)(citing Ex. 8 to Pl.'s Dep.).

C. Love's Job Performance and Termination

On July 10, 2018, Patterson sent an email entitled “FY19 Preview - Changes, Challenges and Opportunities, ” which outlined certain challenges the Department faced and posited that “[b]ecause of these new strategic goals, old habits and routines must be replaced with a sound APO infrastructure.” (Id.)(citing Ex. 4 to Pl.'s Dep.). Patterson attached an attendance policy to this email and clarified that “all employees (non-exempt and exempt) are expected to work a 40-hour work week, Monday-Friday (8 hours a day)” and uniformly instructed APO employees to “[p]lease [] not work from home, after hours, or weekends as part of your 40-hour work week.” (Id. at 2-3)(citing Ex. 4 to Pl.'s Dep.). Love received a copy of this email and understood it to include him. (Id. at 3)(citing Pl.'s Dep. at p. 26 lines 4-13).

On July 12, 2018, Love received a counseling memorandum for poor work performance, based on an April 17, 2018 invoice for $204, 462.78 from the Peoria, Illinois affiliate that was not processed or paid. Part of Love's job description was to “ensure[] payments are approved in a timely fashion and in compliance with contracts.” (Id.)(citing Pl.'s Dep. at p. 26 lines 22-25, p. 27 lines 1-17, p. 28 lines 1-24; Exs. 5 and 6 to Pl.'s Dep.). This unprocessed payment was discussed at a June 27, 2018 finance meeting. Patterson followed up with Love after the meeting on July 5, 2018, and asked why the status report for quarterly invoices was not on the shared drive accessible to her and others in the APO. (Id.)(citing Ex. 5 to Pl.'s Dep.). Love took the position that it was not his responsibility to ensure the invoice was paid. (Id.)(citing Ex. 6 to Pl.'s Dep.; Pl.'s Dep. at p. 29 lines 9-25, p. 30 lines 1-7). In response to the counseling, Love submitted a Response Memorandum and made a complaint to Kynis Douglas with St. Jude's Employee Relations Department. (Id.)(citing Ex. 6 to Pl.'s Dep.). Dr. Russo submitted a written reply to Love's Response Memorandum on July 26, 2018, concluding that the counseling memo was warranted and encouraged him to seek a St. Jude finance mentor to develop proper policies and procedures, and to review the financial and budgetary policies and procedures available in the APO shared drive. (Id.)(citing Ex. 7 to Pl.'s Dep.).

Two months later, on September 13, 2018, Love received his annual performance review from Patterson, wherein she also recommended that Love seek a finance mentor and that he enroll in professional development courses to improve job performance. Love made no comments about this review. (Id. at 4)(citing Ex. 8 to Pl.'s Dep.; Pl.'s Dep. at p. 32 lines 10-23). On September 25, 2018, Dr. Russo exchanged emails with Love containing feedback on observed performance errors by Love, noting two invoice approval sheets with date errors. (Id.)(citing Ex. 9 to Pl.'s Dep.). In response, Love pointed out a typographical error by Dr. Russo but admitted that the errors she noted from the invoice approval sheets were “careless” and “embarrassing.” (Id.)

On October 15, 2018, Patterson met with Love for his fall performance check-in, wherein she discussed with him that he was not meeting performance and behavioral expectations for his role.

Specifically, she noted that he needed to minimize errors by “creating checks and balances in his spreadsheets to account for financial and descriptive errors.” (Id.)(citing Ex. 13 to Pl.'s Dep.). Patterson summarized this meeting in a Memorandum to Love dated October 22, 2018, which contained feedback and provided long-term goals for Love while noting his “consistent errors” in work output. (Id.)(citing Ex. 14 to Pl.'s Dep.; Pl.'s Dep. at p. 91 lines 8-23).

In the months that followed, Patterson and Dr. Russo continued to give Love feedback regarding his habit of coming to work late and leaving early, as well as other performance concerns. Love forwarded each of these conversations to Douglas with St. Jude Employee Relations. (Id.)(citing Exs. 15 16, & 17 to Pl.'s Dep.). For example, in one exchange of emails on December 19, 2018, Patterson noted that “I recognize this leadership transition over the past year has presented challenges/conflicts when compared with the perceived...