Wilkins v. Engineered Plastic Components, Inc.

1

LAKINA HILL WILKINS, Plaintiff, v. ENGINEERED PLASTIC COMPONENTS, INC., Defendant.

No. 2:21-cv-01637-RDP

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division

June 12, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

R. DAVID PROCTOR, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the court on Defendant Engineered Plastic Components Inc.'s (“EPC” or “Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 33). Plaintiff Lakina Hill Wilkins has responded to the Motion. (Doc. # 43). Defendant did not file a reply brief. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is due to be granted.

I. Relevant Undisputed Facts^[1]

Defendant produces plastic products for car manufacturers and has a location in Bessemer, Alabama where Plaintiff worked. (Doc. # 34-3 at 44).^[2]

As discussed below, Plaintiff previously worked for Defendant's predecessors. Before that, she had experience in jobs ranging from restaurant manager to medical billing clerk. (Doc. # 34-1 at 80; Doc. # 34-2 at 47-48). Plaintiff has a two-year associate degree in office management and medical records from Shelton State Community College. (Doc. # 34-1 at 61-63). She attended Shelton State from 2010 until 2012. (Doc. # 34-1 at 62). Prior to that, she had drawn disability for a number of years, and “once I was ready to go back to the workforce, I went back to school.” (Id.).

Plaintiff worked at the Bessemer facility under Defendant's predecessor companies beginning in 2013 and in various roles. (Doc. # 34-1 at 63-66, 80, 90-91; Doc. # 34-2 at 47-48). She was not a qualified engineer. (Doc. # 34-1 at 80; Doc. # 34-2 at 47-48).

In September 2020, when Defendant EPC purchased the company Plaintiff was employed by INOAC. (Doc. # 34-3 at 11, 13). At that time, INOAC was losing millions of dollars per year. (Doc. # 34-3 at 11, 13). At the time of the acquisition Defendant initially retained INOAC's personnel and structure. (Doc. # 34-1 at 116-17; Doc. # 34-2 at 60; Doc. # 34-4 at 36). Defendant brought in Steve Martin (Caucasian male) as Operations Manager to facilitate changes and “turn a losing company profitable.” (Doc. # 34-3 at 11, 13).

Plaintiff was in the position of Production Supervisor at the time Defendant acquired the facility from INOAC and her pay was $63,000 annually, plus overtime. (Doc. # 34-1 at 93-96, 111). There were several other Production Supervisors, including Tamekia Bray (African American female) and Kareem Jones (African American male). (Doc. # 34-1 at 30, pp. 113-14). Johnathon Nix (African American male) later moved into a Production Supervisor role. (Doc. # 34-1 at 128-29). Plaintiff and Bray were the only people employed by Defendant at any of its locations who received overtime pay. (Doc. # 34-3 at 54, 75).

In early 2021, Plaintiff along with Tamekia Bray and Johnathan Nix requested a pay raise. (Docs. # 34-1 at 125-27; # 34-2 at 30; # 41-1 ¶ 13). Plaintiff felt she did more than her fellow production supervisors and therefore deserved a raise. (Doc. # 34-1 at 127-29). Plaintiff admitted that a 3/5 or “meets expectations” was an appropriate evaluation of her performance at that time. (Doc. # 34-1 at 145). When Nix moved into the Production Supervisor role, he was evaluated after ninety (90) days and received a raise at that time. (Doc. # 34-3 at 66-67). At the time of her annual review, Bray also “got a substantial pay increase because of her great job.” (Doc. # 34-3 at 66).

In March and April 2021, Defendant received written complaints about Plaintiff from two employees. (Doc. # 34-1 at 133-40, Doc. # 34-2 at 31-35). Martin testified that on multiple occasions he intended to write Plaintiff up, but the Plant Manager, Greg Montgomery, stopped him. (Doc. # 34-3 at 12). Tammy Lauderdale, Defendant's Human Resources Supervisor, also testified that Mr. Montgomery stopped her from writing up Plaintiff. (Doc. # 34-4 at 8, 107).

In March 2021, Plaintiff's co-worker Ray Davis texted her while she “was out with [her] dental work.” (Doc. # 34-1 at 198). Davis's text stated: “Steve, Greg, and Priscilla, it ain't no way Kina having all these migraines. We have to come up with a solution for this FMLA shit.” (Id. at 199; Doc. # 41-1 at 21). The message also contained five laughing emojis. (Id.). Plaintiff explained that the text indicated that Davis overheard Montgomery, Hansen, and Wilson talking about her use of FMLA leave. (Doc. # 34-1 at 199).

In April 2021, Martin responded to Plaintiff's February request for a pay increase by telling Plaintiff “[W]e [can] talk about this in the near future.” (Doc. # 34-1 at 126-27).

Martin testified that he told Plaintiff that she was being moved from the Production Department to the Quality Department, and that Montgomery would discuss the details with her. (Doc. # 34-3 at 54-56). Martin was instructed by Montgomery that he (Montgomery) would handle the details with Plaintiff. (Id.).

In May 2021, Montgomery asked Plaintiff how she felt about transferring to the Quality Department. (Doc. # 34-1 at 119; Doc. # 35-1 at 2). That was the job Defendant had available for Plaintiff. (Docs. # 35-1 at 2; # 34-3 at 54-56). Montgomery tried to explain to Plaintiff that she could increase her earnings with the move to the Quality Department. (Docs. # 35-1 at 2; # 34-3 at 54-56). Nevertheless, Plaintiff refused the position. (Doc. # 34-1 at 119; Doc. # 35-1 at 20).

In June 2021, despite her earlier refusal to voluntarily take the position, Plaintiff was transferred to the Quality Department as a Quality Engineer at a salary of $63,742, with the opportunity for a salary increase based on a performance evaluation in ninety (90) days. (Doc. # 34-1 at 122; Doc. # 34-2 at 29; Doc. # 34-4 at 53-57; Doc. # 34-4 at 87).

Plaintiff complains that she was not paid the same amount as Quality Engineers Rene Zimmerman and Adam Hansen. (Doc. # 34-2 at 41-46; Doc. # 35-1). Zimmerman and Hansen were both white male Quality Engineers who held engineering degrees and had more extensive experience and training. (Doc. # 34-2 at 41-46; Doc. # 35-1).

Zimmerman holds a Mechanical Engineering Degree from UAB, began his relevant work in Berlin in 2000, and was a Supplier Quality Engineer for Mercedes for two years and served as a Senior Quality Engineer for multiple companies. (Doc. # 34-2 at 41-44; Doc.# 35-1 at ¶ 12). In June 2021, Plaintiff worked with Zimmerman after she was transferred to the Quality Department. (Doc. # 34-1 at 169-70). Plaintiff was “moved back to quality to help with the paper side of life, the HTRs, things like that.” (Doc. # 34-3 at 59).

Hansen received a bachelor's degree in Materials Science and Engineering from UAB, and had been a Quality Engineer for Grede Holdings and AGC Automotive, and a Program Quality Leader at Faurecia Interior Systems, Inc. for several years. (Doc # 34-2 at 25; Doc. # 35-1 at ¶ 12).

Hansen “was a much more seasoned advanced engineer [].” (Doc. # 34-3 at 58). Plaintiff admitted she never worked with Hansen, and that he was quickly elevated to Quality Manager and became her supervisor. (Doc. # 34-1 at 170).

Plaintiff admits she did not know Zimmerman's and Hansen's salaries, but speculated they made more than her because the position “topped out” at $85,000. (Doc. # 34-1 at 153-60, 210). Plaintiff testified that she told Montgomery, “[i]n order for me to stay in this position, you must [sic] going to get my money right.” (Doc. # 34-1 at 171-72).

After Plaintiff's transfer, Rhonda Hendrix, a Caucasian female, assumed Plaintiff's Production Supervisor position on a temporary basis. (Doc. # 34-1 at 147, 150). Although all Production Supervisors were subject to the same job description, they did not necessarily perform the same duties that Plaintiff performed when she held that position. (Doc. # 34-4 at 108-09; Doc. # 34-3 at 24-25). Steve Martin had worked with Hendrix previously. (Doc. # 34-3 at 59-61). He hired Hendrix for her ability to train and grow a team. (Id.). Hendrix previously worked as a superintendent and left that job to take a “higher” position with Defendant. (Id.).

Montgomery, who was the Plant Manager for Defendant and its predecessor INOAC, testified by Declaration that Defendant “made pay decisions based on employees' experience, training, and abilities.” (Doc. # 35-1 at ¶ 12). He also noted that the “male comparators [Plaintiff] pointed to in this lawsuit - Rene Zimmerman and Adam Hansen [] - had greater experience, training, and abilities than Plaintiff, and each performed different jobs than Plaintiff.” (Id. at ¶ 13).

After Plaintiff was moved to the Quality Department, she was not performing in a Quality Engineer role. (Doc. # 34-3 at 76-77). Rather, she was doing paperwork to help get ready for an audit. (Doc. # 34-3 at 76-77). She also made visual boards and walked the floor to provide assistance. (Doc. # 34-1 at 166-69). In fact, the entire facility was involved in preparing for the AITF audit. (Doc. # 34-3 at 36-37).

Between June and August 2021, Plaintiff asked Montgomery when he was “going to get [her] money right?” (Doc. # 34-1 at 172-73).

Because Defendant had purchased INOAC in September 2020, in August 2021, Plaintiff had been employed by Defendant for less than twelve months (one year). (Doc. # 34-1 at 116-17). Nonetheless, Plaintiff was allowed to take intermittent FMLA leave days. (Doc. # 34-1 at 189-96). For example, on August 9, 2021, Plaintiff asked Hansen, the Quality Department Manager, to take time off for a medical procedure. (Doc. # 34-1 at 176). Two days later, on August 11, 2021, Hansen responded by telling Plaintiff “I don't know if I'm going to be able to let you get off because I don't have coverage.” (Doc. # 34-1 at 174). To that message, Plaintiff responded:

“Well, Adam, FMLA you have no control over, and if I have a doctor's appointment or a

...