Oluyole v. Yahoo!, Inc., 8:15CV27

TUMININU J. OLUYOLE, Plaintiff, v. YAHOO!, INC., Defendant.

8:15CV27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

August 7, 2017

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 82, filed by Defendant Yahoo!, Inc. ("Yahoo!"), and the Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply Brief, ECF No. 96, filed by Plaintiff Tumininu Oluyole ("Oluyole"). For the reasons stated below, Yahoo!'s Motion will be granted and Oluyole's Motion will be denied.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are those stated in the Parties' briefs, supported by pinpoint citations to evidence in the record, in compliance with NECivR 56.1¹ and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

During the relevant time,² Yahoo! was a technology company with approximately 12,200 employees worldwide, 225 of whom worked in the company's Omaha, Nebraska, office. Oluyole began working in the Omaha office as a Revenue Share Accountant (Accountant II) on September 24, 2012, with Parker Thornburg ("Thornburg") as his immediate supervisor. Mary Rocha ("Rocha"), also an Accountant II supervised by Thornburg, was one of Oluyole's friends and coworkers at Yahoo!. Oluyole and Rocha often shared with each other their personal complaints about Thornburg's management, and Oluyole claims that Thornburg often made insulting comments and remarks about Oluyole's Nigerian food, clothing, and accent. Oluyole also claims that Thornburg made an effort to prevent Oluyole from being promoted and from advancing within the company. Nevertheless, Oluyole was promoted ahead of schedule to Senior Accounts Payable Analyst (Accountant III) on or about November 13, 2013. This position was in a new department and Laura Smiddy ("Smiddy") became Oluyole's new immediate supervisor. Oluyole alleges he complained about Thornburg's treatment to Thornburg himself and to other upper-management personnel,³ but he never complained to Human Resources during his time at Yahoo! or to Smiddy after his promotion.

Sometime in December 2013 or January 2014, Thornburg recommended to Scott Garner ("Garner"), Thornburg's own immediate supervisor, that Rocha be terminated for poor work performance. On January 10, 2014, Rocha and Garner discussed the possibility of a severance agreement, and on January 21, 2014, Rocha voluntarily resigned from her position at Yahoo! with the understanding that she would be given a severance package.

It is Yahoo!'s custom to review a former employee's Yahoo!-issued computer to reassign any outstanding projects and extract any work that may have been in progress. On the day of Rocha's resignation, Thornburg and Michelle Dahlmann ("Dahlmann"), an information technology employee, logged on to Rocha's Yahoo!-issued computer to review the saved files. During the review, they discovered a completed application to work at High Sierra Energy, which inaccurately listed Oluyole as Rocha's supervisor at Yahoo!. Application for Employment, ECF No. 83-18, Page ID 754. Dahlmann and Thornburg then decided to review Rocha's instant message ("IM") conversations to determine whether Oluyole was aware of Rocha's intention to misrepresent their work relationship. They discovered a January 7, 2014, conversation where Oluyole instructed Rocha to use him as a "manager/reffersl" (sic).⁴ Thornburg forwarded the application and the IM correspondence to Artimiss Fagerlund ("Fagerlund"), an H.R. employee, who investigated the matter and informed Rocha that her severance benefits would be revoked. Oluyole maintains Thornburg inappropriately reviewed Rocha's computer, misrepresented the facts regarding the issue, and "strategically concocted a story of alleged misconduct." Pl.'s Br. Summ. J., ECF No. 92, Page ID 883.

On February 13, 2014, Fagerlund met with David White ("White"), Yahoo!'s Global Process Owner-Payables, Credit & Collections Officer, to discuss the matter. White then briefed Aman Kothari ("Kothari"), Yahoo!'s Senior Vice President, Global Controller & Chief Accounting Officer, and they decided to terminate Oluyole's employment for instructing Rocha to misrepresent their work relationship in violation of Yahoo!'s ethics policies.⁵ Email Correspondence, ECF No. 83-14, Page ID 738 ("I [White] briefed Aman [Kothari] and he is in agreement that we should proceed with termination."). On February 21, 2014, White, Fagerlund, and Christina Schmitz, Smiddy's immediate supervisor, discussed how to proceed with the termination, and on February 24, 2014, Oluyole was discharged.

Oluyole claims his IM messages were misunderstood because he managed Rocha at D&K Financial, his part-time tax preparation business, and it was his intention that Rocha use him as a supervisor reference in that capacity. Rocha, however, was never an employee at D&K Financial and she was never paid for any work there. Oluyole Depo., ECF No. 92-4, Page ID 969-70. Oluyole also did not provide this as an explanation in his correspondence with Fagerlund after Oluyole was terminated. See Email Correspondence, ECF No. 92-24, Page ID 1256-57.

Oluyole brought this action against Yahoo!, alleging several claims, many of which have been dismissed by the Court. See Memorandum and Order, ECF No. 34, Page ID 326. Oluyole's remaining claims allege discrimination on the basis of his race, color, and national origin; retaliation; and hostile work environment in violation of federal and Nebraska state law. His claims also allege Yahoo! violated the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act ("NWPCA") when the company decided not to pay Oluyole a bonus or for his unused New Child Leave time after he was terminated. In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Yahoo! argues that Oluyole has not established a prima facie case of discrimination, retaliation, or hostile work environment, and that Yahoo! had a legitimate nondiscriminatory, non-retaliatory reason for terminating his employment. It further asserts that Yahoo! was not obligated, as a matter of law, to pay Oluyole a bonus or any payment for his unused New Child Leave time.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, presents no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Garrison v. ConAgra Foods Packaged Foods, LLC, 833 F.3d 881, 884 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). "Summary judgment is not disfavored and is designed for every action." Briscoe v. Cty. of St. Louis, 690 F.3d 1004, 1011 n.2 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1043 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc)). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the Court will view "the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party . . . drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Whitney v. Guys, Inc., 826 F.3d 1074, 1076 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing Hitt v. Harsco Corp., 356 F.3d 920, 923-24 (8th Cir. 2004)). Where the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, "Rule 56(e) permits a proper summary judgment motion to be opposed by any of the kinds of evidentiary materials listed in Rule 56(c), except the mere pleadings themselves." Se. Mo. Hosp. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 642 F.3d 608, 618 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986)). The moving party need not produce evidence showing "the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Johnson v. Wheeling Mach. Prods., 779 F.3d 514, 517 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325). Instead, "the burden on the moving party may be discharged by 'showing' . . . that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Lifecare Int'l, Inc., 250 F.3d 587, 596 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325).

In response to the moving party's showing, the nonmoving party's burden is to produce "specific facts sufficient to raise a genuine issue for trial." Haggenmiller v. ABM Parking Servs., Inc., 837 F.3d 879, 884 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Gibson v. Am. Greetings Corp., 670 F.3d 844, 853 (8th Cir. 2012)). The nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, and must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Wagner v. Gallup, Inc., 788 F.3d 877, 882 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042). "[T]here must be more than the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute" between the parties in order to overcome summary judgment. Dick v. Dickinson State Univ., 826 F.3d 1054, 1061 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Vacca v. Viacom Broad. of Mo., Inc., 875 F.2d 1337, 1339 (8th Cir. 1989)).

In other words, in deciding "a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a genuine dispute as to those facts." Wagner, 788 F.3d at 882 (quoting Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042). Otherwise, where the Court finds that "the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party," there is no "genuine issue of material fact" for trial and summary judgment is appropriate. Whitney, 826 F.3d at 1076 (quoting Grage v. N. States Power Co.-Minn., 813 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir. 2015)).

DISCUSSION

I. Race Discrimination and Retaliation

Oluyole claims Yahoo! discharged him in violation of Title VII⁶ and the Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act ("NFEPA"),⁷ because of his status as an African-American, and his national origin—Nigerian. He also claims Yahoo! retaliated against him, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, for complaining about the treatment he received from his supervisor, Thornburg.

Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of their race, color, or national origin, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 "prohibit[s] employers from retaliating against employees for opposing racial discrimination." Wright v. St. Vincent Health Sys., ...