Wilson v. Graybar Elec. Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-3701

GYLES G. WILSON, v. GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY INC., et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-3701

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

March 14, 2019

Baylson, J.

MEMORANDUM RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In this case, this Court must determine whether genuine disputes of material fact prelude summary judgment on behalf of Defendants Graybar Electric Company, Inc. ("Graybar") and James O'Kane. Plaintiff Gyles Wilson initiated this suit alleging that he was wrongfully terminated from his position as Warehouse Supervisor at Graybar on the basis of age, disability, race, and national origin, and in retaliation for seeking workers' compensation and taking medical leave, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.; the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.; and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"), 42 P.S. § 951 et seq.

For the reasons discussed below, summary judgment for Defendants is granted in part and denied in part.

I. UNDISPUTED FACTS

The following is a fair account of the factual assertions at issue in this case, as taken from both parties' Statements of Fact and briefs, and are not genuinely disputed.

Plaintiff, a black man of Jamaican descent, spent twenty-three years working for Defendant Graybar. (ECF 35-3, "Defs.' SOF" ¶¶ 1-2; ECF 39-2, "P's SOF" ¶¶ 1-4.) Graybar first hired Plaintiff as a truck driver in Tampa, Florida in 2003. (Defs.' SOF ¶ 3.) In 2005, Plaintiff transferred to Graybar's Philadelphia branch and worked as an assistant to the Warehouse Supervisor. (Id.) The next year, when Plaintiff was over the age of forty, he was promoted to Warehouse Supervisor at the Philadelphia branch. (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff's responsibilities included supervising warehouse personnel and incoming and outgoing shipping activity, maintaining security of merchandise, and ensuring that all warehouse procedures were followed. (ECF 35, "Resp." Ex. C, "Wilson Tr." Ex. 19.) Defendant O'Kane was Plaintiff's supervisor from 2007 to 2014, and the two maintained a good relationship. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8.)

A. Graybar's Disciplinary Policy

Graybar's "Corrective Action Process" includes four steps to improve an employee's performance, assuming that the employee has the ability to correct the performance deficiency. (P's SOF Ex. B, "Cook Tr." Ex. 1 ¶ 7.)

During Step One, which is a management consultation, an employee's immediate supervisor must meet with the employee to describe the performance/behavior observed, define the program and desired performance/behavior, gain the employee's commitment to improvement, and schedule a follow-up meeting usually no more than thirty days later. (Id. ¶ 7.1.1.)

Step Two consists of a second meeting followed by a letter, termed a "Performance Improvement Plan Written Notice" ("Written Notice"), confirming the desired performance/behavior and a time frame for improvement. (Id. ¶¶ 7.1.2, 7.1.2.1.) During this time frame, the employee is not eligible for merit increases or promotions. (Id. ¶ 7.1.2.2.)

Step Three, which occurs if the employee's behavior/performance has not improved within a "reasonable period of time," is a third meeting followed by a second Written Notice. (Id. ¶ 7.1.3.) During this third meeting, the manager should advise the employee that if his performance/behavior does not immediately improve, the employee will be terminated. (Id.) The employee is also not eligible for salary increases until the employee's manager is satisfied that his performance/behavior meets expectations. (Id. ¶ 7.1.3.2.)

Step Four is termination. (Id. ¶ 7.1.4.) Termination may occur if all three steps of the corrective action process have been implemented and the employee's performance/behavior has not significantly improved, or if the employee fails to make a good faith effort to improve his performance. (Id. ¶ 8.1.) Even if all documentation of the circumstances leading to an employee's termination are not stored in the employee's personnel file, Graybar retains the right to take "the corrective action that it deems appropriate under the circumstances." (Id. ¶ 8.2.1.)

B. Plaintiff's Disciplinary Record Through January 2015

Every year on September 1 from 2011 to 2016, Plaintiff received a merit-based increase in his annual salary. (Resp. Ex. A.) The reason provided in the spreadsheet documenting Plaintiff's salary increases is "merit." (Id.) In November 2014, Plaintiff completed a Graybar Management Training Program. (Cook Tr. Ex. 2.) The letter enclosing the certificate of completion states, "As a manager, your contributions play a key role in driving the success of the entire organization. . . . However, what we have given you are just tools; in order to be a truly successful manager, you must remember and utilize the information you had gained throughout the program." (Id.) And in 2015, Plaintiff earned a Graybar Safe Driver award. (Id.)¹

However, Monique Thornton Cook, Graybar's then-Director of Human Resources, testified that she met with O'Kane to discuss her concerns about Plaintiff's performance "multiple times" between the summer/fall 2014 through January 2015. (Cook Tr. at 49:2-18.) Plaintiff's first documented performance issue was in July 2014 and concerned Plaintiff's admitted failure to follow the scrap wire process outlined by O'Kane. In a July 31, 2014 email exchange between Plaintiff and O'Kane addressing this issue, Plaintiff states, "You are correct. Some of the steps were missed. Going forward I will pay closer attention the steps in the procedure you have outline [sic]." (Wilson Tr. Ex. 23.)

C. January 2015 Management Consultation

On January 5, 2015, Plaintiff received his first corrective counseling at Graybar-Step One in Graybar's progressive discipline policy-for performance issues that dated back to July 2014. (Defs.' SOF ¶¶ 11, 12, 13.) The Written Notice, which Plaintiff did not sign, memorialized the corrective counseling session. (Wilson Tr. Ex. 20; P's SOF ¶¶ 11-16.) O'Kane described nine incidents in the notice, including the July 31, 2014 scrap wire incident, which took place on July 31 through December 30, 2014. (Wilson Tr. Ex. 20.) Examples of these incidents include the following:

7/31 - I had to address with Gyles why the warehouse was not handling the scrap wire process quarterly in accordance with our published instructions. This was noticed after I found some boxes of scrap wire in the warehouse. Giles agreed that he wasn't performing this process correctly. I had previously simplified the scrap wire instruction and sent it to Gyles to follow.

8/29 - Gyles emailed me asking if we should repair damage to one of our Graybar delivery trucks. When I looked further down the email chain, I noticed that the truck was put into the shop to remove the old company logo and have the current logo added. I had to ask Gyles why the damage wasn't properly noticed on the driver's pre-trip inspection and why he didn't notice the damage himself when he signed the report. Gyles claimed that he noticed it 'way back' but didn't want to send the truck to the shop for something that seemed small. The damage was actually significant, and I questioned why Gyles never reported the damage ofcompany property to myself. This was obviously caused by the driver striking something, and an accident investigation should have been completed. Gyles didn't have an explanation.

12/30 - We received a call from MJF stating that they were missing 1 of 2 skids of wire that we should have sent to them on 12/24. Gina Kenny pulled the ticket that she created to ship this wire as a result of an unrelated error on NJSC. She explained to Gyles on 12/23 that we were correcting a service failure and that it was important to get [a certain] property ticket delivered. The notes on that ticket were to deliver . . . 2 boxes/skids [identified][]. When we looked into this issue on 12/30, the ticket had Gyles [sic] hand writing stating '1 box on skid' and his initials on the selector line. The material was worth about $1,100 and we were told it was lost. The POD only showed 1 skid which would suggest that the 2nd skid never left the warehouse. Gina and I walked down the RSO isle and found the other skid of wire that should have been delivered to the customer on 12/24. We had to redeliver the material on 12/31.

(Wilson Tr. Ex. 20.) Aside from the December 30, 2014 issue, Plaintiff did not dispute any occurrences discussed during the January 5, 2015 meeting. (Id. ¶ 16.)

D. September 2015 Written Notice

On September 9, 2015, Plaintiff first received and signed a Written Notice-Step Two of Graybar's progressive discipline policy. (P's SOF ¶¶ 19-22²; Defs.' SOF ¶ 19.) In this Written Notice, O'Kane described eleven examples of Plaintiff's performance or behavior from January to August 2015 that needed correction, including the following:

1/6/15- Gyles sent me an SG172 to junk some pipe which was damaged in the warehouse. Based on the amount of pipe being requested to junk, I looked deeper into the issue and found that damaged material was not being written up immediately after it was taken out of stock. Gyles' remedy was to review it "once per month" instead of weekly. Failure to write this material up as damaged immediately is against the warehouse manual and would cause inventory discrepancies. I explained to Gyles once again, the correct way to handle this.

7/31/2015- I received an invoice for warehouse supply which shoed the person ordering it as Anthony Harrigan. I had previously covered this topic with Gyles in2014, and instructed him that material handlers do not have the authorization to order warehouse supply. This particular task should be handled by the warehouse manager or supervisor. Gyles claimed that the supplier used the wrong employee name when the material was

...