Stone v. McGraw-Hill Global Educ. Holdings, LLC

126 F.Supp.3d 1077

Micah STONE, Plaintiff,

v.McGRAW–HILL GLOBAL EDUCATION HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant.

No. 4:13CV2578 RLW.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

Signed Aug. 26, 2015.

Melvin L. Raymond, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.

Gregory I. Rasin, Steven D. Hurd, Proskauer Rose, LLP, New York, NY, Stephen H. Rovak, Dentons U.S. LLP, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RONNIE L. WHITE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32). The motion is fully briefed and ready for disposition. Upon review of the motion and related documents, the Court finds that summary judgment in favor of the Defendant is appropriate.

I. Background

In February 2007, Defendant McGraw–Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC ("McGrawHill") hired Plaintiff Micah Stone as a Sales Representative in Miami, Florida. (First Amended Complaint ("FAC") ¶ 8, ECF No. 15; Stone Dep. 16:15–21, ECF No. 33–4) His duties included calling on instructors in Florida schools, visiting their departments, finding out their needs, and ultimately selling college textbooks and educational products to the instructors and schools. (Stone Dep. 18:20–24; Wildes Aff. ¶ 3, ECF No. 33–6) Plaintiff's salary in 2011 was $59,384. (Williams Aff. ¶ 3, ECF No. 33–28) Also in 2011, Plaintiff applied for a position of Learning Solutions Consultant ("LSC") in various locations, including St. Louis, Missouri. (Stone Dep. 30:3–15) Plaintiff interviewed with Irene McGuinness, Liz Wildes, Jim Kelly, Tom Malek, and Brian Kibby. (Stone Dep. 30:16–31:8) He had several in-person and phone interviews throughout the process, and eventually McGuinness and Wildes recommended Plaintiff for promotion to the LSC position in St. Louis. (Stone Dep. 30:16–31:17; 35:25–36:22; Wildes Aff. ¶ 12) Both McGuinness and Wildes were aware that Plaintiff's race was African–American. (Wildes Aff. ¶ 13)

During the in-person interview with McGuinness and Wildes, they discussed Plaintiff's salary. (Stone Dep. 33:5–35:11) Plaintiff believed that they had agreed, and shook, on a starting salary of $95,000. (Stone Dep. 33:7–10) After the interview, Plaintiff sent an email to McGuinness incorporating this salary and accepting the job offer. (Stone Dep. 35:4–5; Stone Aff. Ex. 2, ECF No. 40–4) However, McGuinness told Plaintiff not to get ahead of himself because he still had two more interviews. (Stone Dep. 35:8–11; Stone Aff. Ex. 2) Kibby ultimately determined that $85,000 was an appropriate starting salary, and Wildes extended an oral offer of employment to Plaintiff, which he accepted. (Wildes Aff. ¶¶ 16, 17; Stone Dep. 36:20–25; 38:1–7; Williams Aff. Ex. A, ECF No. 33–29) White employees in LSC positions in the Central Region had starting salaries either less than or equal to Plaintiff's base salary of $85,000. (Stone Dep. 40:20–41:10; Wildes Aff. ¶¶ 22–23, Ex. B–D) The other two LSC employees in the region, Brad Ritter and Bob Scanlon, received higher salaries but had prior experience in positions similar to the LSC position at a competing company. (Wildes Aff. ¶¶ 26–28) Plaintiff protested the salary and also complained to human resources. (Stone Dep. 37:1–23, ECF No. 40–1; Pl.'s Ex. 5, ECF No. 40–16)

Plaintiff began working as an LSC in the fall of 2011, when he transitioned from Sales Representative in Miami to LSC in St. Louis. (Stone Dep. 51:15–55:8, ECF No. 33–4) Plaintiff was paid the higher salary during this transition period. (Stone Dep. 51:15–22) His direct supervisor was Wildes, and McGuinness was Plaintiff's second level supervisor. (Stone Dep. 57:22–58:2; Wildes Aff. ¶ 19)

The LSC position was a leadership position, requiring Plaintiff to work with Sales Representatives in his territory; their District Manager Kim Nentwig; and his direct supervisor, Learning Solutions Manager for the Central Region Liz Wildes. (Williams Aff. Ex. B, ECF No. 33–30; Wildes Aff. ¶¶ 4–7) The position also required Plaintiff to lead, coach, develop, motivate, and manage his assigned team sales. (Williams Aff. Ex. B) Plaintiff did not feel part of Wildes' team because she had not worked with Plaintiff in his territory, unlike other LSCs in the Central Region. (Stone Dep. 120:10–14; 121:19–23; Stone Aff. ¶ 11, ECF No. 40–2)

On January 7, 2012, while attending a national sales meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, Wildes and McGuinness met with Plaintiff and mentioned that he had been late to meetings. (Stone Dep. 187:20–190:20; Wildes Aff. ¶¶ 33–34) Prior to the meeting, Wildes had received complaints from Sales Representatives about Plaintiff. (Wildes Aff. ¶ 30, Ex. H, ECF No. 33–14) On January 15, 2012, Wildes sent an email to Plaintiff recapping the January 7 meeting and listing four job expectations, including the need to be on time for meetings and the expectation that he work all day on campus with his reps and have a 24 hour turnaround time on email and phone calls to reps. (Wildes Aff. Ex. I, ECF No. 33–15) Plaintiff contends that he had good reason for being late to two meetings, namely he was stuck in traffic due to a snow storm and a rep's failure to send a text in advance of picking him up. (Stone Dep. 181:4–14; 190:14–192:5) However, he testified that he was he was not otherwise late to meetings. (Stone Dep. 192:6–8; Brauchie Aff. ¶ 7, ECF No. 40–38)

Around January 31, 2012, Plaintiff, Wildes, and Bridgette Hannenberg attended a conference in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (FAC ¶ 15B) Plaintiff alleges that he overheard Wildes tell Hannenberg that she wished she never hired "his black ass." (FAC ¶ 15B; Stone Dep. 99:15–25) Wildes denies making said statement. (Wildes Aff. ¶ 37)

On March 8, 2012, Plaintiff received a written warning stating that Plaintiff was not meeting expectations and that his performance was inadequate. (FAC ¶ 17; Stone Dep. 235:13–25, 245:11–14; Wildes Aff. Ex. K, ECF No. 33–17) In particular, the warning identified four areas of concern: (1) "problematic communications and working relationships with key collaborators"; (2) "punctuality and attendance issues"; (3) "follow-up and response time delays"; and (4) "organization of work issues." (Wildes Aff. Ex. K)

The written warning referenced a meeting on January 12, 2012, where Plaintiff left a breakfast sales-strategy meeting after Nentwig allegedly grabbed his arm by force. (Wildes Aff. Ex. K; Stone Dep. 185:2–24) Plaintiff attributed this to her aggression. (Stone Dep. 185:21–24) While not specifically asked whether the action was motivated by race, Plaintiff never testified that the act was racially motivated. (Stone Dep. 180:17–187:19) Nentwig sent an email apology the following day. (Pl.'s Ex. 9, ECF No. 40–20) However, Plaintiff alleges that this, along with other actions created a hostile work environment based on race. (FAC ¶ 15)

The written warning of March 8, 2012 further noted that since the January 12, 2012 meeting, there had been a breakdown in communication between Plaintiff, Nentwig, and others in his district. (Wildes Aff. Ex. K) Specifically, the warning noted that co-workers indicated that they found it difficult to communicate with Plaintiff because he responded in a hostile or condescending tone, and, therefore, almost no direct communication existed between Plaintiff and his colleagues. (Id. ) The warning included guidance and instructions for Plaintiff to follow for performance improvement. (Id. ) Further, the warning advised that a failure to improve could result in disciplinary action, including termination without further warning. (Id. ) Plaintiff acknowledged he read the warning by signing the document. (Id.; Stone Dep. 236:3–11)

Between March 8, 2012 and the date Plaintiff was terminated, Wildes communicated with Plaintiff on multiple occasions regarding his deficient performance, including missing a weekly team conference call and failing to communicate with Nentwig in person and over the phone. (Wildes Aff. ¶ 43, Exs. L–Q, ECF Nos. 33–19 to 33–24) Further, following the written warning, Wildes continued to receive complaints about Plaintiff from the Sales Representatives. (Wildes Aff. Ex. R, ECF No. 33–25) Plaintiff disputed that his performance was deficient and claimed that his work requirements were more stringent than other LSCs. (Pl.'s Exs. 20–22, ECF Nos. 40–31 to 40–33) On April 19, 2012, Wildes submitted a memo to Keith Eng, Human Resources Manager, detailing specific instances where Plaintiff failed to meet expectations, and she recommended that Plaintiff's employment be terminated. (Wildes Aff. Ex. S, ECF No. 33–26) Defendant discharged Plaintiff on April 26, 2012 for poor performance. (FAC ¶ 18; Stone Dep. 243:23–25, 245:11–19; Wildes Aff. ¶ 50) Plaintiff alleges that the facts do not support Defendant's finding that Plaintiff's performance was deficient and instead, his termination was motivated by race.

On April 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendant McGrawHill alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Missouri Human Rights Act, Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 213.010 et seq. Plaintiff alleges that he was unfairly compensated due to his race; subjected to a hostile work environment; wrongfully discharged due to his race; and retaliated against him for complaining about the discriminatory treatment.¹ Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on November 25, 2014, arguing that Plaintiff's compensation was appropriate and comparable to non-minority LSCs. Defendant further contends that Plaintiff's two allegations of harassment do not satisfy the standard of a hostile work environment, nor has Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to support his claim that his discharge was based on race. Finally, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff was discharged for documented performance problems and not for any retaliatory reason.

II. Legal Standards

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), a court may grant a motion for...