Tolbert v. Briggs and Stratton Corp.

510 F.Supp.2d 549

Elvis TOLBERT, Plaintiff, v. BRIGGS AND STRATTON CORPORATION, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:05cv1149-MHT.

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division.

February 8, 2007.

Juraldine Battle-Hodge, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff.

Tamula Renee Yelling, Thomas Andrew Davis, Constangy, Brooks & Smith LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant.

OPINION

MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge.

Plaintiff Elvis Tolbert brings this race-discrimination lawsuit against defendant Briggs and Stratton Corporation (B & S). Tolbert asserts that B & S failed to promote him and eventually fired him, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a, 2000e to 2000e-17. Additionally, he asserts a state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. This court has original jurisdiction over the Title VII claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (f)(3), as well as supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

This case is currently before the court on B & S's motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, summary judgment will be granted on the Title VII claims, and the state-law claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

I. SUMMARY-JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Under Rule 56, the court must view the admissible evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Viewed in the light most favorable to Tolbert, the admissible evidence reflects the following facts. B & S is a manufacturer of small gas-powered engines. Its plant in Auburn, Alabama has three general areas: iron machining, aluminum machining, and assembly. Each area is supervised by an area manager, and within each area are several team leaders, or coaches. A coach is a salaried supervisor with direct responsibility for hourly employees.

Tolbert, who is black, worked for B & S from 1996 until 2004. He began as a temporary worker, but he was soon hired as a permanent employee. He was quickly promoted from production operator to `setup,' and then, in November 1996, to coach. From November 1996 until February 2002, he was a coach in the assembly area of the plant.

During the period of employment from 1996 to 2002, Tolbert experienced several problems that were not resolved to his satisfaction. One such problem was a conflict over his selection of "lead setups," special assistants who would fill in during a coach's absence. According to Tolbert, white coaches were given complete discretion in choosing lead setups, whereas B & S's management initially rejected Tolbert's selection of two black employees to be lead setups. (Ultimately Tolbert was permitted to choose black employees for that role.)

Another significant problem Tolbert experienced involved insubordination by a white hourly employee, Daniel Reeves, who was under his supervision. Reeves refused to carry out duties that Tolbert had assigned him, so Tolbert wrote him up for insubordination. According to Tolbert, such misconduct at B & S ordinarily resulted in termination of the hourly employee. In this case, however, Reeves was not disciplined in any way. Tolbert interprets this incident, as well as the incident involving his selection of lead setups, as evidence that B & S did not give black coaches the same authority and respect that they gave white coaches.

Tolbert recalls several other incidents and complaints that left him dissatisfied with his treatment by B & S during this period. One incident involved Tolbert's struggle to obtain a chair for his office. Another involved an e-mail that used an offensive term unrelated to race. Tolbert also recounts two minor altercations he had with white employees who were not his supervisors. Lastly, Tolbert suspects he received less training and less pay than he deserved, but he has no evidence to support this opinion. However, none of these incidents or complaints, including those involving the selection of lead setups and B & S's failure to terminate Reeves, led Tolbert to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or lodge any other type of formal complaint prior to this lawsuit.

Tolbert had served in the Navy Reserve since his discharge from active service in 1990. In February 2002, when he was still a coach in the assembly area, he was recalled to full-time active duty. Consequently, from February 2002 until July 2003, Tolbert was away from B & S on military leave.

When Tolbert returned to B & S, he remained a coach, but he was reassigned to the iron-machining area of the plant, which manufactures engine parts known as flywheels and crankshafts. Tolbert, who supervised the flywheel unit, was one of seven coaches in iron machining. Three coaches, including Tolbert, were on first shift; three were on second shift; and one was on third shift. Three of the seven coaches, including Tolbert, were black. The area manager for iron machining, Robert Westphal, was white.

In 2004, there were several ongoing problems in the iron-machining area. The problems included the failure to meet production goals and the presence of unidentified parts and baskets in the area. The iron-machining coaches were counseled by Westphal and the plant manager, Harold Smith, about several problems that were occurring in that area. Tolbert was among the coaches counseled, but the counseling took place collectively; Tolbert was not counseled on an individual basis. The parties dispute the extent to which the problems in that area were attributable principally to Tolbert, but it is not disputed that, some problems existed prior to Tolbert's arrival in the iron-machining area and that some problems were occurring on all three shifts, not just Tolbert's.

At some point, Westphal began to focus on Tolbert as the source of problems in his area. Westphal transferred some of Tolbert's responsibilities-production of Model 20 flywheels — to another coach, Mallory Covington. (Covington is black.) In December 2004, Westphal asked Tolbert to write a list of issues needing improvement. Tolbert responded with a list of 127 deficiencies. Westphal then approached Smith, the plant manager, and recommended Tolbert's termination. Westphal documented several specific instances of substandard performance by Tolbert that had recently caused problems in the area. On December 10, 2004, B & S terminated Tolbert for poor performance.

Following Tolbert's departure, B & S did not hire another coach to take Tolbert's place. Some of Tolbert's duties had already been transferred to Covington, and B & S reassigned the remaining supervisory duties to Roger Milby, a white supervisory employee in the iron-machining area. Milby was a manufacturing specialist whose pay grade was already a step above Tolbert's and whose responsibilities as a manufacturing specialist covered all three shifts in the iron-machining area. Milby continued in his position as manufacturing specialist in addition to picking up those of Tolbert's duties that had not already been transferred to Covington.

Following the filing of a timely. EEOC complaint and receipt of a right-to-sue letter in response, Tolbert brought this suit.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Title VII Claims

Title VII makes it "an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (a)(1). This suit alleges `disparate treatment' based on race, in violation of that statute. A disparate-treatment suit is one in which the plaintiff alleges he or she was treated differently, and almost always less favorably, because of his or her protected status. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 335 n. 15, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977).

In a disparate-treatment case, the plaintiff must prove that the employer acted with discriminatory purpose, motive or intent. Id; see Williams v. Motorola, Inc., 303 F.3d 1284, 1293 (11th Cir.2002). The plaintiff may prove discriminatory intent by producing circumstantial evidence. Standard v. A.B.E.L. Servs., Inc., 161 F.3d 1318, 1330 (11th Cir.1998).

A circumstantial case proceeds according to the familiar burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), and its progeny. Standard, 161 F.3d at 1331. First, the plaintiff must establish a prima-facie case of discrimination. Id. Next, the employer must produce a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Id. Lastly, the plaintiff must prove that the employer's articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason was a pretext for unlawful intentional discrimination. Id. (citing McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802-04, 93 S.Ct. 1817).

Under the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas, the establishment of a prima-facie case creates a presumption of discrimination. Id. The employer can eliminate the presumption by producing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, which then shifts the burden back to the plaintiff to produce "sufficient evidence to find that the employer's asserted justification is false," Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 148, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). Although the prima-facie case shifts the burden of production to the employer, it does not reallocate the...