Sutton v. The Bryn Mawr Tr. Co.

1

MICHAEL MCSHANE SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. THE BRYN MAWR TRUST COMPANY, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 19-2420

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

October 27, 2022

MEMORANDUM

Schiller, J.

Plaintiff Michael McShane Sutton, a white man, began working as head teller at The Bryn Mawr Trust Company's (the “Bank” or “BMT”) Ardmore branch in December 2017 and was fired soon thereafter in July 2018. The Bank claims it fired Sutton for repeated absenteeism and tardiness. Sutton contends he was retaliated against for associating with Black colleagues and supporting a Black coworker's complaints about a racially hostile work environment. He asserts claims for race discrimination and retaliation. The Bank moves for summary judgment on all claims. For the reasons that follow, the Bank's motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

The Bank hired Sutton on December 11, 2017 and he was an employee until his July 24, 2018 termination. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [Def.'s SUMF] ¶¶ 1 6; Pl.'s Statement of Disputed Fact in Opposition to Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [Pl.'s SDF in Opp.] ¶¶ 1, 6.) He was the head teller at the Bank's Ardmore branch. (Def.'s SUMF ¶ 2; Pl.'s SDF in Opp. ¶ 2.)

A. Sutton's “Attendance Issue”

From Sutton's first weeks at the Bank, he had a self-described “attendance issue.” (Sutton Dep. 106:21-24). Sutton was absent more than six times in his first six weeks on the job. (Def.'s SUMF ¶ 11).

He called out sick on December 18, 2017, January 22, 23, and 24, 2018, and February 8 and 9, 2018 and used paid time off (“PTO”) on February 7, 2018. (Def.'s SUMF ¶ 11; Pl.'s SDF in Opp. ¶ 11; Sutton Dep. 107:6-13, 190:4-10, 213:2-8; Def.'s Exs. 66, 74.) Sutton admits he had “an attendance issue,” and it was “not a good start.” (Sutton Dep. 106:17-20; Sutton Dep. 108:36.) But he did suggest to his managers that he would take the January absences without pay. (Pl.'s SDF in Opp. ¶ 11; Sutton Dep. 107:21-24.)

1. Sutton's Mother's Health Deteriorates in January 2018

The declining health of Sutton's mother precipitated his attendance issue. (Pl.'s Mem. of Law in Opp. to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. [Pl.'s Opp.] at 2.). Sutton's sixty-six-year-old mother was unexpectedly hospitalized on January 10, 2018. (Sutton Dep. 67:11-16; Def.'s Ex. 73.) Sutton did not know the severity of his mother's condition. (Id.) He made a concerted effort to proactively work with his Bank manager and keep his team knowledgeable about what was happening with his family because he was a new employee and the situation with his mother could change rapidly. (Id. 67:17-24; 70:16-23.) About two weeks later, Sutton's mother agreed to enter hospice care because her illness was terminal. (See Def.'s Ex. 73.) She sadly passed on March 5, 2018. (Def.'s SUMF ¶ 43.)

On January 24, after Sutton's first four absences and while his mother was in the hospital, Sutton's Ardmore branch manager, Danielle Llewellyn-Perez,^[1] emailed human resources employee Nicola Fryer about his absences. (Def.'s SUMF ¶ 13, Pl.' SDF in Opp. ¶ 13; Def.'s Ex. 66.) Llewellyn-Perez shared her concern that “this may be a pattern” and that Sutton's PTO was in the negative because he had not yet accrued enough time off to cover his absences. (Def.'s Ex. 66.)

Llewellyn-Perez spoke with Sutton about his PTO usage and shared her concerns about his accountability on January 30. (Def. SUMF ¶14; Sutton Dep. 190:11-21.) During this conversation, Sutton shared that his wife suggested he put in his two weeks' notice to focus on his mother. (Def.'s SUMF ¶ 14; Pl.'s SDF in Opp. ¶ 14; Sutton Dep. 191:2-24.) After his offer to take unpaid leave was denied, felt he was just trying to work with Llewellyn-Perez to figure out next best steps. (Sutton Dep. 192:9-18.)

2. Sutton's February 8, 2018 Email

On February 8, Sutton called out sick and sent a lengthy email to Ardmore branch market area manager Laura Biernacki explaining his absence and the situation with his ailing mother. (Def.'s SUMF ¶¶ 20, 22-29; Pl.'s SDF in Opp. ¶¶ 20, 22-29; Def.'s Ex. 73.) He felt comfortable reaching out to Biernacki because the two had trained together in January and she hadencouraged him to reach out. (Sutton Dep. 116:2-6.) Sutton wrote that he was “reaching out frankly because [he was] afraid based on [his] supervisor's behaviors, actions and reactions these past few weeks that [Biernacki] may not be aware of a sad and painfully serious issue [he was] dealing with outside of the bank.” (Def.'s Ex. 73.) Sutton described his mother's illness and wrote that if he could have been at work, he would have, but he was not physically or mentally well enough to support the Bank team. (Id.) He offered some strongly worded critiques of his managers and workplace. Of Llewellyn-Perez, Sutton wrote “[m]y impression of my supervisor is she [is] singularly concerned with her own issues at BMT and beyond and has found my unfortunate circumstances to be a good excuse to use to exonerate herself and other teammates as to why Ardmore isn't going where it needs to be while letting the bus run over me in turn.” (Id.) Of his Ardmore workplace, he wrote “[t]o be brutally honest I feel we are a rudderless ship with absentee leadership who doesn't even take 5 minutes a week as a Group to coach us let al[o]ne 1 on 1 coaching!” (Id.) He continued, “I fear there are a host of issues with our team that I'm being used as a handy scapegoat for any and all of those issues.” (Id.) He concluded by making assurances that he would “do whatever it takes to get back” to work the next day, “even if [he had] to be wheeled in tomorrow.” (Id.) Nevertheless, Sutton did not come into work on February 9. (Def.'s SUMF ¶ 30; Pl.'s SDF in Opp. ¶ 30.) Sutton testified that his email may not have been a “wise decision at that moment” and was the product of an inordinate amount of stress given the difficult time in his life. (Sutton Dep. 116:10-24.) He claims he later apologized to Biernacki and Llewellyn-Perez. (Id. 118:10-16.)

In response to Sutton's email, a Bank employee prepared a “Corrective Communication Notice” detailing Sutton's repeated absences up until February 9, 2018. (Def.'s Exs. 76, 267.) The notice is dated February 8, 2018. (Def.'s Ex. 76.).^[2]

3. Sutton's Continued Absenteeism and February 14 Final Written Warning

Sutton was late to work on February 13 and 14.^[3] On February 14, Llewellyn-Perez and Biernacki gave him a final written warning for absenteeism. (Def.'s SUMF ¶ 35; Pl.'s SDF in Opp. ¶ 35; Def.'s Ex. 76.) It listed all of Sutton's absences and stated “[w]e understand you are going through a difficult time. Just keep in mind that we still have a business to maintain.” (Def.'s Ex. 76.) Sutton refused to sign it. (Def.'s SUMF ¶ 35; Pl.'s SDF in Opp. ¶ 35.) He took the final written warning home to write comments on it, but nobody at the Bank asked him to return it. (Def.'s SUMF ¶¶ 37-38; Pl.'s SDF ¶ 38.) The next day, he emailed Fryer in Human Resources about “some discrepancies” in the final written warning. (Sutton Dep. 217:23-218:18.) Sutton testified that he did not remember what those discrepancies were but suggested he may have been curious about why he was not given a verbal warning before the final written notice. (Id.) But later in his deposition, he testified that he had received verbal warnings for his tardiness in the past. (Id. 219:7-9.)

4. Sutton's Mother's Passing, His Dissatisfaction with the Bank's Response, and Additional Discipline

After Sutton's mother died on March 5, he requested three days of nonconsecutive bereavement leave beginning March 6. (Def.'s SUMF ¶¶ 43, 48, Pl.'s SDF in Opp. ¶ 48.) The Bank granted his request. (Def.'s SUMF ¶ 48, Pl.'s SDF in Opp. ¶ 48.)

Sutton grew upset with the way the Bank handled his mother's passing. Sutton was upset that the Bank did not send a flower arrangement to his mother's funeral. (Sutton Dep. 328:2329:12; Def.'s Ex. 227.) He also testified that Biernacki told him to schedule the funeral for a Saturday because it would “be the least amount impactful” on the branch's operations. (Sutton Dep. 361:11-362:8.)^[4]

In a March 13 email exchange from his Bank email address with his wife, a law firm partner, Sutton sent an email with the subject line “So I'm already being harassed etc [sic] for being out for this,” and asked his wife “What's my move?” (Def.'s Ex. 227; Pl.'s SDF in Opp. ¶ 52.) She replied “[y]ou're being harassed for taking your 3 bereavement days?” and Sutton answered “Yes.” (Def.'s Ex. 227.) Sutton wrote that an unnamed female employee twice made a comment that he “come[s] and go[es] as [he] please[s]” in front of his Bank customers. (Id.) After a few additional short emails Sutton wrote to his wife “[s]tory of my life. Take undignified behavior on the chin and smile for the experience as everyone takes a big poop all over me. All for about 15 bucks an hour.” (Id.) Later he wrote “[i]t's basically my fate to work at a menial job and be treated like an abused dog. It's fine. I give up.” (Id.)

On March 28, Sutton emailed Fryer about her purported failure to follow up on his request to discuss his February final written warning.^[5] (Def.'s Ex. 85, Def.'s SUMF ¶ 55.) He wrote that since he had not heard back from Fryer, he would reach out to Nancy Pinkowicz, another human resources employee, because “the harassment against [him had] escalated.” (Def.'s Ex. 85.) Fryer sharply replied that Sutton's email “absolutely baffle[d] [her]” and asked him to think back to their discussion on March 27, 2018. (Id.) Fryer wrote “[y]ou appear to be intentionally reiterating incorrect information regarding our communication and incorrectly stating that I am not getting back to you or following up in some other way as promised. I expect this...