Lutz v. Lexjax, Inc.

1

JOSEPH LUTZ, Plaintiff, v. LEXJAX, INC., d/b/a Mercedes-Benz of Orange Park, Defendant.

No. 3:21-cv-936-MMH-PDB

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division

July 30, 2024

ORDER

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 64; Motion) filed by LexJax, Inc. (LexJax) on August 31, 2023. Plaintiff Joseph Lutz filed a response on September 21, 2023. See Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 66; Response). LexJax then filed a brief in reply. See Defendant's Reply in Support of Summary Judgment (Doc. 69; Reply), filed October 5, 2023. On July 8, 2024, the Court held a hearing on the Motion at which the parties argued their respective positions. Accordingly this matter is ripe for review.

I. Background^[1]

Fields Auto Group (Fields) owns numerous car dealerships throughout the United States. See Declaration of John Mantione at 1 (Doc. 64-1; Mantione Declaration). LexJax (d/b/a/ Mercedes-Benz of Orange Park) is one of these dealerships and sells new and pre-owned vehicles. Id. at 1-2. Relevant here, LexJax has the following organizational structure: the General Manager is the highest-ranking management official at the dealership and possesses the limited authority to hire employees, recommend termination actions, conduct and administer discipline, and direct sales leads. See Deposition of LexJax at 9, 18, 20, 22 (Doc. 62-3; LexJax Deposition). The Sales Managers, who are supervised by the General Manager, have the limited authority to recommend the hiring and termination of employees, and also manage the dealership's sales personnel. Id. at 9, 26, 27. Sales personnel, in-turn, are the individuals who conduct the day-to-day sale of cars at the dealership. See Deposition of Joseph Lutz at 192 (Doc. 62-1; Lutz Deposition). Also located within LexJax is an independent human resources department which is responsible for all of Fields' human resource functions. See Deposition of Gena Jankowski at 9, 50 (Doc. 62-6; Jankowski Deposition).

In May 2017, LexJax hired Lutz to work as a salesperson at the dealership. See Lutz Deposition at 130. At that time, Debbie Mills was the dealership's General Manager. Id. at 131. But, around October 2018, Aaron Mong took over as General Manager. Id. at 138. Throughout his employment, Lutz's direct supervisor was L.J. Walters (one of LexJax's Sales Managers). See Deposition of L.J. Walters at 26 (Doc. 62-8; Walters Deposition). And Gena Jankowski was the Director of Human Resources. See Jankowski Deposition at 9.

Upon being hired, Lutz was given LexJax's Equal Employment Opportunity, Anti-Harassment, and Non-Discriminatory Policy to review. See Lutz Deposition at 149; see also Fields Auto Group Employee Handbook (Doc. 66-1; EEO Policy). The EEO Policy forbids discrimination and harassment based on an individual's religion or national origin, and also prohibits retaliation due to an employee's complaints about alleged EEO Policy violations. See EEO Policy at 8, 10. If harassment or retaliation does occur, the EEO Policy instructs employees to bring a complaint to their supervisor, any member of management, or Jankowski. Id. at 9.

Initially, Lutz's employment at LexJax was uneventful. See Lutz Deposition at 143-44. However, when Mong became the General Manager in 2018, the environment at LexJax changed for the worse. Id. at 144. And Lutz, who is Jewish, began experiencing harassment and discrimination based on his religion and national origin. Id. at 150-51. For instance, LexJax employees would intentionally have conversations in-front of Lutz that involved antisemitic sentiments. Id. at 152. Specifically, George Vogt (another LexJax salesperson) would say in a German accent, “Oh, we have a Jew” in reference to Lutz. Id. at 151-52. Vogt would also make comments that the Nazis “should have burned” all of the Jews; that it “would be great to have a situation over here like they had in Germany”; and he would perform a “Heil Hitler” salute in Lutz's presence. Id. at 152-153. These sort of conversations occurred approximately five to ten times throughout 2019. Id. at 179. Walters participated in these conversations, and even laughed at Vogt's comments. Id. at 151.

In addition to these conversations, Lutz experienced other forms of harassment. Id. at 176-77. In one instance, Lutz was experiencing a medical issue and “peed out a blood clot into [a] urinal” in the LexJax bathroom. Id. at 246. Vogt, who was in the restroom with Lutz at the time, got in Lutz's face and said to him, “[y]ou bled in the toilet. I'll cut your head off, Jew[.]” Id. at 246-47. On another occasion, Lutz was waiting at the dealership's front desk when Walters approached him, tossed coins on the floor, and said, “[h]ey, you're Jewish. Go pick it up.” Id. at 177. On yet another occasion, Lutz walked into the LexJax office and noticed that the whiteboard used to track car sales had Jewish symbols written on it in place of his name. See id. at 155; Exhibit Pictures of Jewish Symbols on Board (Doc. 66-9; LexJax Sales Board).

Although Lutz was distressed by these incidents, he never explicitly told anyone at LexJax that he was being harassed because he was Jewish. See Lutz Deposition at 155. However, Lutz did make numerous complaints to his superiors about being unfairly treated due to his work performance. Id. at 81. The first of these complaints occurred in November 2018 when Walters called Lutz “and just started harassing [him]” about not making enough phone calls. Id. at 139-40, 145-46. Lutz, upset by the way that he was being treated by Walters, met with Mong and told him that Walters had been “picking on [him].” Id. at 158. During this meeting, Lutz never told Mong that Walters' harassment was based upon his religion. Id. at 142. In fact, neither Walters nor Mong knew that Lutz was Jewish at the time. Id. Then, in January 2020, Sean Dowling (LexJax's sales manager for pre-owned vehicles) issued Lutz a written discipline for failing to meet his objective quota for weekly sales calls. Id. at 207. Lutz filed a formal grievance in response to Dowling's write-up, but in the grievance he made no mention that the write-up had anything to do with him being Jewish. Id. at 207, 211. Finally, in February 2020, Lutz met with Jankowski and complained about how Walters had been “writing [him] up for not making enough phone calls.” Id. at 100-01. In this meeting, Lutz told Jankowski that Walters had been “pick[ing] on” him. Id. at 99. But never told her that he was being picked on because he was Jewish. Id.

Despite the work environment at LexJax, Lutz continued to exceed sales expectations by selling the most cars in 2019, and was awarded the “Top Dog Salesperson of the Year” award for his efforts. Id. at 218. Nonetheless, the environment at LexJax caused Lutz to become emotionally distressed. Id. at 243. And when COVID-19 struck Florida, Lutz decided to take COVID leave, and stopped coming into the dealership. Id. at 184. Despite deciding to take the leave, Lutz intended to return to LexJax once it was safe to do so. Id. at 46-47. However, in April 2020, Lutz informed Mong that he would not be returning to the dealership, and that he was quitting his job. Id. at 94, 215.

Eight months later, on December 30, 2020, Lutz filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). See Charge of Discrimination at 1 (Doc. 62-13; EEOC Charge). In his EEOC charge Lutz alleged that LexJax “promoted and condoned a hostile work environment in which [he] was harassed on the basis of [his] religion and ancestry on an ongoing basis” and that he “faced retaliation due to [his] complaints about” this harassment. EEOC Charge at 1. The EEOC issued Lutz a Notice of Right to Sue, and he subsequently brought this action. See Complaint ¶ 39 (Doc. 1).

II. Legal Standard

Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), “[t]he court shall grant 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.” Rule 56(a). The record to be considered on a motion for summary judgment may include “depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Rule 56(c)(1)(A).^[2] An issue is genuine when the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the nonmovant. See Mize v. Jefferson City Bd. of Educ., 93 F.3d 739, 742 (11th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Publ'g Co., 9 F.3d 913, 919 (11th Cir. 1993)). “[A] mere scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party's position is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.” Kesinger ex rel. Est. of Kesinger v. Herrington, 381 F.3d 1243, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)).

The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating to the court, by reference to the record, that there are no genuine issues of material fact to be determined at trial. See Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). “When a moving party has discharged its burden, the non-moving party must then go beyond the pleadings, and by its own affidavits, or by depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc., 64 F.3d 590, 593-94 (11th Cir. 1995) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Substantive law determines the materiality of facts, and “[o]nly...