Rushton v. Experi-Metal, Inc.

DONALD RUSHTON, Plaintiff, v. EXPERI-METAL, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-11318

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

December 18, 2020

Paul D. Borman United States District Judge

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT EXPERI-METAL, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 17)

This is an employment discrimination case in which Plaintiff Donald Rushton alleges that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment during his three-and-a-half year employment with Defendant Experi-Metal, Inc. as a press operator, and that he was constructively discharged in retaliation for complaints he made regarding treatment he experienced because of his race. Now before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17). The motion is fully briefed. The Court held a hearing using Zoom videoconference technology on December 11, 2020, at which counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant appeared. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

1. Defendant EMI

Defendant Experi-Metal, Inc. ("Defendant" or "EMI") is based in Sterling Heights, Michigan and manufactures mobility products, such as prototype manufacturing, aircraft parts, and military cab fabrication. (ECF No. 17, Def.'s Mot. at pp. 2-3, PgID 78-79.) EMI employs approximately 135 to 150 employees at a given time, (ECF No. 17-2, Sandy Domzalski Deposition Transcript ("Domzalski Dep.") at p. 32, PgID 113,) and has a Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment which states that the Company prohibits harassment on the basis of race or any other protected characteristic. (ECF No. 17-3, EMI Employee Handbook, PgID 138.) Employees who experience or witness harassing behavior are required to bring it to the attention of the Human Resources Manager, a member of Executive Management, or to the President of the Company. (Id. PgID 139.) EMI's policy is to "investigate all concerns about unlawful harassment and discrimination thoroughly and promptly, and to take appropriate remedial steps." (Id.) Employees who are found to have engaged in harassment are subject to discipline, up to and including discharge. (Id.) EMI also prohibits "[r]etaliation in any form against an employee who makes a complaint or who cooperates in an investigation of alleged discrimination or harassment," and any employee who engages in retaliation is subject to disciplinary action, up to and including discharge. (Id. PgID 140.)

2. Plaintiff's employment with EMI

Plaintiff Donald Rushton applied for a Press Operator position with Defendant in July 2014. (ECF No. 17-4, Donald Rushton Deposition Transcript ("Rushton Dep.") at p. 49, PgID156; ECF No. 17-8, Rushton Employment Application, PgID 221-26.) He then interviewed with Human Resources Manager Sandy Domzalski, Press Room Department Head Chuck Isaacson, and General Manager Dave Maschke, and they offered Plaintiff the job. (Rushton Dep. at pp. 54-56, PgID 157.) Plaintiff accepted the offer and began his employment with Defendant on August 18, 2014, as a trainee in the Press Room at a pay rate of $15 per hour. (Id.; Domzalski Dep. at p. 25, PgID 112.) Chuck Isaacson was Plaintiff's supervisor throughout his employment with EMI. (Rushton Dep. at p. 56, PgID 157.)

In early-2015, Plaintiff was selected to participate in Defendant's mentorship program. (Rushton Dep. at pp. 76-77, PgID 162-63.) The purpose of the mentorship program was to train less experienced employees, such as Plaintiff, so they could take over the roles held by experienced Press Operators when those operators left the company. (ECF No. 17-5, Chuck Isaacson Deposition Transcript ("Isaacson Dep.") at p. 16, PgID 209.) Employees in the program, including Plaintiff, are assigned to a variety of "mentors" during the course of the program so they can gain insight and experience from a variety of different Press Operators. (Id. at pp. 16-17, PgID 209-10.)

Plaintiff's first mentor was Press Operator Ken Ullmann. (Rushton Dep. at p. 77, PgID 163.) Plaintiff filled out a Mentorship Program Questionnaire on or about April 24, 2015, in which he wrote about Ullman: "I believe we worked well together. I really didn't have an opportunity to work with him that much. I don't think we experienced any conflicts." (ECF No. 17-17, Mentorship Program Questionnaire PgID 237.) In response to the question asking, "[w]hat did you like least about the program?" Plaintiff wrote "[t]he short amount of time I actually got to spend working with my mentor," and he indicted "yes" to the question of whether he would like to work with his mentor again. (Id.)

In July 2015, Plaintiff filled out an Employee Self Review. (ECF No. 17-18, Employee Self Review, PgID 238-39.) Plaintiff did not mention anything regarding inappropriate racial conduct in the review, although he did answer "no" to the question is whether his manager (Isaacson) treated him "fairly and with respect," and wrote "someone who would treat everyone fairly" would make a great manager. (Id.) Plaintiff similarly did not mention inappropriate racial conduct when meeting with Domzalski to discuss his self-review, but rather he stated that Isaacson "has his crew that he takes care of" and that Plaintiff "does not want to look like a whiner or complainer." (Id.; Domzalski Dep. at p. 103, PgID 131; Rushton Dep. at pp. 117-19, PgID 173.) Domzalski told Plaintiff that EMI cannot improve a situation if they are not aware of it, with regard to Plaintiff's comment that he believed he could be treated more fairly by Isaacson. (Domzalski Dep. at pp.103-05, PgID 131-32.)

In August, 2015, Plaintiff was promoted from trainee to "Upgrader," which is another term for "Press Operator." (Rushton Dep. at p. 135, PgID 177; ECF No. 17-6, 8/25/2015 Employee Evaluation, PgID 219; Isaacson Dep. at p. 15, PgID 209.) Plaintiff was assigned to run one of Defendant's top presses. (Isaacson Dep. at p. 37, PgID 215.)

In 2016, Defendant EMI was purchased by Quality Metalcraft, Inc. ("QMC"), and Plaintiff was selected to be EMI's hourly representative on the EMI/QMC Integration Team in October 2016. (Rushton Dep. at p. 144, PgID 179.) According to Defendant, the "primary purpose" of the Integration Team was "to discuss the corporate culture of EMI and QMC and how the cultures could be improved." (Def.'s Mot. at p. 5, PgID 81.) Plaintiff admits that he never mentioned during the team meetings that he was treated differently because he is African American, and never referred to any racial comments or incidents in the workplace. (Rushton Dep. at p. 146, PgID 180.)

During Plaintiff's tenure with Defendant, he received 11 pay raises, and by February 2018, his pay had increased by 50% from $15.00 to $22.58 per hour, the top of the pay grade for his job classification. (ECF No. 17-7, Employee Pay History, PgID 220; Domzalski Dep. at p. 79, PgID 125.) As will be discussed further below, Plaintiff resigned on March 12, 2018. (Employee Pay History, PgID 220.)

3. Reported and/or alleged racial incidents during Plaintiff's employment

a. Reported incidents

During Plaintiff's employment, Defendant investigated and/or addressed three separate incidents involving inappropriate comments or behavior directed at or involving Plaintiff.

First, in September 2014, about a month after Plaintiff was hired, a coworker (and subsequently Plaintiff's mentor), Ken Ullmann, overheard Safety Department leader Michael Taylor tell a racially-insensitive joke to Plaintiff. (Rushton Dep. at pp. 211-12, PgID 196.) According to Plaintiff, Taylor said something to him like "what do you call a black baby who gets its wings? A bat." (Id.) Ullmann overheard the comment and reported the incident to Isaacson, who in turned reported it to Domzalski. (Id.; Isaacson Dep. at pp. 23-24, PgID 211.) Domzalski investigated the incident, and although Taylor was "extremely remorseful and very upset" when Domzalski confronted him, Defendant determined that Taylor's "joke" violated the Company's anti-discrimination policy and Taylor received a written Employee Warning Report ("EWR") and was given a one-day unpaid suspension for his conduct. (Domzalski Dep. at pp. 60-61, PgID 120-21; ECF NO. 17-14 Michael Taylor EWR, PgID 234.) Plaintiff states that he had no negative interactions with Taylor after this incident. (Rushton Dep. at p. 213, PgID 197.)

The second incident occurred on April 28, 2015, during a shift change, when either Tony Leo, Plant Superintendent, or Tom Stewart, a manager, overheard Night Shift Supervisor Paul Tumey ask Plaintiff if he was going to "work on his tan" after work. (Rushton Dep. at pp. 95-96, PgID 167; Domzalski Dep. at p. 66, PgID 122.) Leo and/or Stewart then reported this statement to Domzalski, who investigated the incident, including obtaining a written statement from Plaintiff. (Rushton Dep. at p. 96, PgID 167; Domzalski Dep. at p. 68, PgID 122; ECF No. 19-3, Donald Rushton 4/28/2015 Written Statement, PgID 339.) In his written statement, Plaintiff writes that in response to Tumey's question, they "both kinda chuckled" and Plaintiff responded "I think I have that down packed [sic]." (Ruston 4/28/2015 Statement, PgID 339.) Rushton continued that "[i]t was very akward [sic] hearing someone say that to me" and that "[i]t wasn't the first time that I have heard remarks like this here at EMI and I'm sure it won't be the last which is why I hesitated to say anything about the matter." (Id.) Defendant determined that Tumey's comment violated the Company's anti-harassment policy and issued a written EWR to Tumey on April 29, 2015, and gave him a one-day unpaid suspension. (ECF No. 17-15, Paul Tumey EWR, PgID 235.) Plaintiff states that he did not have any negative interactions with Tumey after this incident. (Rushton Dep. at pp. 100-01, PgID 168-69.)

The third incident occurred on or about January 26, 2016, when a new employee, Jesse Bodner, had a confederate flag sticker...