Meine v. S. Glazer's Wine & Spirits

1

PAMELA MEINE, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE & SPIRITS Defendant.

No. 2:22-cv-04167-MDH

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division

March 27, 2024

ORDER

DOUGLAS HARPOOL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.^[1]The parties have filed extensive sur-replies on various legal and factual issues. The matter is ripe for review and the Court has considered all briefing. For reasons herein, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

Defendant Southern Glazer's Wine & Spirits (“Defendant” or “Southern Glazer's”) employs Plaintiff Pamela Meine (“Plaintiff” or “Meine”) as a lead merchandiser. Defendant is a wholesale distributor of beer wine, and spirits for retail businesses in several states including Missouri. Defendant's Missouri merchandising operations appear to be broken into four regional divisions St. Louis, Kansas City, Springfield, and Columbia. Plaintiff started working at Southern Glazer's through a temporary employment agency as a merchandiser in November 2017. Southern Glazer's then hired Plaintiff to be a merchandiser in February 2018. Plaintiff was promoted to lead merchandiser for the Columbia region in July 2018. Throughout her tenure with Southern Glazer's, Plaintiff has always worked within Defendant's Columbia merchandising region.

Plaintiff claims that, though she was technically employed as a lead merchandiser, “by October 2018, Plaintiff was doing essentially all the work of a merchandising manager.” (Doc. 11 at ¶ 10). Though doing the work of a merchandising manager, Plaintiff received less overall compensation than other merchandising managers employed by Defendant in Missouri, all of whom are men. Plaintiff worked at an hourly rate, while male merchandising managers earned a salary. Plaintiff was also ineligible for a bonus, unlike male merchandiser managers. Plaintiff's allegations concern not the dollar amount of her hourly rate, but instead the broader compensation package, including a salary instead of hourly wages, received by male merchandising managers.

According to Plaintiff, the reason she performed merchandising manager duties while still a lead manager, is that Dave Sloss, the former Columbia merchandising manager, became the manager for the St. Louis region in mid-2018 and the Columbia position remained unfilled. Plaintiff then assumed Sloss' former duties during this official vacancy. Meine then applied for the Columbia merchandising manager position once it was officially advertised around September 2021. Defendant interviewed four job applicants altogether, three males and one female (Plaintiff). Plaintiff's candidacy ultimately proved unsuccessful. Instead, Defendant hired Kyle Wolfe, a male lead merchandiser from Defendant's Kansas City merchandising region. Following the October 2021 announcement that Plaintiff had not been selected for the Columbia merchandising manager job, Plaintiff stopped performing merchandising manager duties. (Doc. 47 at 7). Plaintiff alleges she filed her administrative charge of discrimination with the Missouri Human Rights Commission December 15, 2021, received a right-to-sue letter August 5, 2022, and filed the present lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri October 6, 2022. Defendant thereafter removed this matter this Court under diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff's complaint alleges unequal compensation and failure to promote based on sex discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) § 213.055.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is proper where, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Reich v. ConAgra, Inc., 987 F.2d 1357, 1359 (8th Cir. 1993). “Where there is no dispute of material fact and reasonable fact finders could not find in favor of the nonmoving party, summary judgment is appropriate.” Quinn v. St. Louis County, 653 F.3d 745, 750 (8th Cir. 2011). Initially, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the movant meets the initial step, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). To satisfy this burden, the nonmoving party must “do more than simply show there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiff Timely Exhausted Administrative Remedies

Missouri statute requires that any person claiming to be aggrieved under the MHRA file a verified complaint with the Missouri Human Rights Commission (“MHRC”) “within one hundred eighty days of the alleged act of discrimination” RSMO § 213.075.1. Failure to do so “shall deprive the [MHRC] of jurisdiction to investigate the complaint.” Missouri statute also requires a plaintiff to sue an employer, if at all, no more than ninety days after issuance of a right-to-sue letter, but not more than two years after the complained-of conduct. RSMO § 213.111.1.

Missouri Courts, however, recognize the continuing violation theory, under which “a victim of discrimination may pursue a claim for an act occurring prior to the statutory period, if she can demonstrate the act is part of an ongoing practice or pattern of discrimination by her employer.” Plengemeier v. Thermadyne Indus., Inc., 409 S.W.3d 395, 401 (Mo.Ct.App. 2013). The continuing violation doctrine constitutes an equitable exception to the statute's timeline that courts must apply sparingly. Bozue v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 536 F.Supp.3d 438, 449 (E.D. Mo. 2021). A continuing violation theory requires that at least one allegedly unlawful act occur within the statutory filing period and that the conduct at issue reflects an ongoing, interrelated series of events. Plengemeier at 409.^[2] Under Missouri precedent, “a one-time employment action affecting a continuing loss of pay is not a continuing violation and is untimely if not brought within the statutory period.” Gill v. City of St. Peters, 641 S.W.3d 733, 740 (Mo.Ct.App. 2022) (citations omitted). Perhaps the clearest example of a continuing violation is a hostile work environment allegation, which by nature involves claims of repeated conduct. Tisch v. DST Sys., Inc., 368 S.W.3d 245, 254 (Mo.Ct.App. 2012) (citations omitted). On the other hand, “easily identifiable,” “discrete acts,” like failure to promote or refusal to hire, do not give rise to a continuing violation claim. Id.

In the present case, though ongoing loss of pay is typically considered a continuing impact rather than a continuing violation, Plaintiff does not allege any pay differential results from a one- time employment action. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that on a regular basis for a period of approximately three years, Defendant regularly and routinely required her to complete job duties at the merchandising manager level, though she was employed and compensated only at the lead merchandiser level. Id. In this sense, Plaintiff's unequal compensation claim is more akin to a continuing hostile work environment claim than an allegation that a one-off event leading to multiple lower paychecks. This position finds support in various places throughout the record, notably Plaintiff's September 13, 2019 email to Derek Janssen, in which Plaintiff describes an ongoing, regular set of job requirements, allegedly beyond the stated demands of Plaintiff's position of lead merchandiser, for which Defendant failed to adequately compensate Plaintiff. (Doc. 40-41). Accordingly, Plaintiff has adequately alleged and argued the existence of an ongoing, interrelated event. Further, Plaintiff has alleged that she filed her administrative charge of discrimination with the Missouri Human Rights Commission on December 15, 2021, which is within 180 days of some of the complained-of conduct giving rise to the unequal compensation allegation, which, according to Plaintiff, persisted until October 2021. Accordingly, this Court finds Plaintiff's filing of the charge with the MHRC reflects a timely exhaustion of administrative remedies sufficient to survive Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

II. Plaintiff's Pay Discrimination Claim

a. McDonnell-Douglas Burden Shifting Applies

The parties have extensively briefed the issue of whether the three-step burden shifting analysis described in McDonnell-Douglas or the federal Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) framework governs analysis for Plaintiff's unequal compensation claim. Missouri courts have held that, “In deciding a case under the MHRA, appellate courts are guided by both Missouri law and federal employment discrimination caselaw that is consistent with Missouri law.” Li Lin v. Ellis, 594 S.W.3d 238, 242 (Mo. 2020) (citations omitted). “The MHRA is not merely a reiteration of Title VII, and in some ways is broader and in other ways more restrictive.. .When federal caselaw is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the MHRA, it is inapposite for the purpose of interpreting the MHRA.” Gill at 741 (citations omitted).

Under the McDonnell-Douglas analysis in the context of workplace sex discrimination, the employee establishes a prima facie discrimination case by showing “(1) the employee was a member of a protected class; (2) the employee was qualified to perform the job; (3) the employee suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the employee was treated differently from other similarly situated employees of the opposite sex.” Lampley v. Missouri Comm'n on Hum....