Williams v. Ap Parts, Inc.

252 F.Supp.2d 495

Seth A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. AP PARTS, INC., Defendant

No. 3:01CV7544.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division.

March 3, 2003.

Seth A. Williams, Toledo, OH, Pro Se.

Andrew Baran, Cox, Hodgman & Giarmarco, Troy, MI, Barbara J. Alison, Frantz Ward, Cleveland, OH, for AP Parts, Inc., Defendant.

ORDER

CARR, District Judge.

This is an employment discrimination case in which plaintiff Seth A. Williams alleges he was discriminated against at his job with AP Parts, Inc. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Pending is defendant's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). For the following reasons, defendant's motion shall be granted.

BACKGROUND

In 1998, plaintiff began employment at the Toledo, Ohio, manufacturing plant of Faurecia Exhaust Systems, Inc. (previously AP Parts, Inc.).

On May 8, 2000, plaintiff received a written reprimand for "absenting himself during working hours without permission." Def.'s Ex. C. On May 11, 2000, plaintiff filed a grievance with his union challenging the write-up as discrimination and harassment.

On June 2, 2000, while the first grievance was pending, plaintiff received a second write-up for "absenting himself from working hours without permission." Def.'s Ex. E.

Under defendant's work rules, the second infraction called for a three day suspension. Defendant's long-standing practice, however, was to defer any disciplinary action while a grievance was pending. Therefore, plaintiff was not suspended as a result of the second write-up.

On June 20, 2000, plaintiff injured his finger and was unable to work. Shortly thereafter, he returned to work in a light duty position but reinjured himself on July 22, 2000. In December, 2000, plaintiff returned to his light duty position. In February, 2001, plaintiff was laid off because there was no work for him within his work restrictions.

Defendant had substantial permanent reductions in force in 2001 and eventually closed in 2002. Employees affected by the 2001 layoffs were offered a voluntary severance agreement. Plaintiff executed one of these agreements in November, 2001.

In October, 2001, plaintiff brought this suit alleging he was "subjected to disparate terms and conditions of employment ... because of his race." Plaintiffs Complaint at K 7. Defendant moves for summary judgment.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment must be entered "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 411 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The moving party always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party who "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)).

Once the burden of production shifts, the party opposing summary judgment cannot rest on its pleadings or merely reassert its previous allegations. It is insufficient "simply [to] show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Rather, Rule 56(e) "requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the [unverified] pleadings" and present some type of evidentiary material in support of its position. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324,106 S.Ct. 2548.

In deciding the motion for summary judgment, the evidence of the non-moving party will be accepted as true, all doubts will be resolved against the moving party, all evidence will be construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all reasonable inferences will be drawn in the non-moving party's favor. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 456, 112 S.Ct. 2072, 119 L.Ed.2d 265 (1992). Summary judgment shall be rendered only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff claims that defendant subjected him to unlawful discrimination based on race under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Title VII provides, "It shall be unlawful employment practice for an employee—(1) 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 ...."

Where the plaintiff does not have direct evidence of discrimination, courts use a burden-shifting approach. The Supreme Court explained:

First, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination. Second, if the plaintiff succeeds in proving the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant "to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's rejection." Third, should the defendant carry this burden, the plaintiff must then have an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination.

Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-53, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 804, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)).

To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under McDonnell Douglas and Burdine, the plaintiff must prove: 1) he is a member of a protected class, 2) he was subjected to an adverse employment action, 3) he was qualified, and 4) he was treated differently than similarly-situated male employees for the same or similar conduct. See Jacklyn v. Schering-Plough Healthcare Prods. Sales Corp., 176 F.3d 921, 928 (6th Cir.1999) (citing Mitchell, 964 F.2d at 582-83)).

Defendant argues plaintiff fails to show evidence that he suffered a sufficiently adverse employment action. Assuming plaintiff could establish a prima facie claim, defendant also argues that any disciplinary action against plaintiff was based on good faith, non-discriminatory reasons.

I. Adverse Employment Action

An adverse employment action is a "materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of ... employment." Hollins v. Atlantic Co., Inc., 188 F.3d 652, 662 (6th Cir.1999). In Hollins, the Sixth Circuit stated:

[T]he Seventh Circuit explained the requirements for establishing a materially adverse employment action in the context of an age discrimination case:

[A] materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment must be more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities. A materially adverse change might be indicated by a termination of employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities, or other indices that might be unique to a particular situation.

Id. (citing Crady v. Liberty Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 993 F.2d 132, 136 (7th Cir. 1993)); see also Black v. Columbus Pub. Schs., 124 F.Supp.2d 550, 565 (S.D.Ohio 2000) ("The United States Supreme Court has defined an adverse employment action as a `significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits as well as the denial of a raise or promotion.' ") (citing Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998)).

Plaintiff argues that he "suffered discipline for being out of his work area when Caucasian employees were allowed to leave the work area." Plaintiffs Complaint at f 7.

Discipline can constitute an adverse employment action if it is a "materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of [plaintiffs] employment." Hollins, 188 F.3d at 662.

As this court explained in Rose v. Buckeye Telesystem, Inc., 181 F.Supp.2d 772 (N.D.Ohio 2001):

discipline constitutes an adverse employment action when it involves suspension from work for several days or when the suspension is without pay. See e.g., Russell v. Board of Trs. of Univ. of Ill, 243 F.3d 336, 341 (7th Cir.2001) (suspension for five days without pay was an adverse employment action); Biolchini v. General Elec. Co., 167 F.3d 1151, 1154 (7th Cir.1999) (one-week disciplinary suspension was a materially adverse employment action); Silk v. City of Chicago, 194 F.3d 788, 800 (7th Cir.1999) (five-day disciplinary suspension was materially adverse).

Discipline can also be an adverse employment action when disciplinary writeups affect an employee's opportunity for promotion and pay raises, and may place an employee on probation. See e.g., Cunningham v. Kansas City Star Co., 995 F.Supp. 1010, 1025 (W.D.Mo.1998) ("There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that disciplinary `write-ups' adversely affected plaintiffs' working conditions in that writeups affected plaintiffs' opportunities for promotions."); Duran v. N.M. Dep't of Labor, 143 F.Supp.2d 1278, 1285 (D.N.M.2001) ("There is no evidence that the warning letter or inability to attend the Governor's Conference ... affected Plaintiffs employment ... by leading to future discipline or preventing future advancement. Therefore, these disciplinary actions did not sufficiently alter Plaintiffs compensation, terms...