Two weeks ago, the Sixth Circuit affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on a supervisor’s claim that he had been demoted and his position had been eliminated on account of his European race and prior complaints of discrimination. Browning v. Franklin Precision Industry, Inc. No., 23-5406 (6th Cir. Dec. 5, 2023). The Court found that he could not prove that the employer’s explanation was pretextual because he had admitted that his was not the only position eliminated, that he had failed to comply with certain policies, that he had been counselled about prior conduct and had been demoted prior to his position being eliminated. It also did not help that he had no documentation to prove that he had engaged in protected protestations of unlawful discrimination before he filed a Charge of Discrimination following his demotion.
According to the Court, the plaintiff alleged that the
Japanese employees of his employer made inappropriate jokes about his weight and
European heritage and racist comments about African-American employees. He also alleged that he had reported to HR
multiple times about the refusal of management to permit him to promote African-American
employees. However, there was no
documentation of any such complaints.
Prior to his alleged mistreatment, a female temporary worker complained
that he made her uncomfortable when, for instance, he invited her to dinner
alone to thank her for her work.
Although he denied he had acted inappropriately and he claimed that HR
found no merit in her complaints, he was suspended for three days. He was also counseled for leaving work prior
to when a manufacturing defect had been remedied for a major customer. He also admittedly refused to clock in an out
pursuant to a new policy. He was offered
a demotion, which he ultimately accepted, but filed a Charge of Discrimination
a few weeks later. A few months after
that, most employees were furloughed with the COVID pandemic. Although the company eventually began to
recall employees to work, it was determined that it would be more cost
effective to outsource some positions, including that of the plaintiff. He filed suit alleging discrimination and
retaliation. The trial court dismissed
the claims on summary judgment.
The court agreed that he could not show a prima facie case
of retaliation or discrimination.
Although he engaged in protected activity by complaining about
discriminatory comments, he could not show that his complaints motivated his
demotion, furlough or ultimate termination because there was no evidence that
any of the decisionmakers knew about his protected conduct:
However, as the district court found, [he] failed to present credible evidence that decisionmakers at FPI were aware of his complaints, or that his protected activities led to his demotion and termination. . . . Stated differently, [he] failed to establish that the protected activity and adverse employment action were causally connected.
Even if the plaintiff had complained to the decisionmakers,
he could not show that their justification for the employment actions was
pretext for unlawful discrimination or retaliation: “FPI provided legitimate
reasons for its adverse employment decisions. The company maintains that it
demoted [him] because he behaved inappropriately toward a temporary worker,
failed to comply with timekeeping policies, and exhibited poor leadership
skills.”
He does not dispute that he routinely failed to comply with company timekeeping policies and, on one occasion, left members of his team to handle a production crisis. Instead, [he] contends that his less-than-exemplary record did not justify the company’s decision to demote him. But as the district court correctly held, [he] cannot prove pretext by arguing that he thinks FPI made the wrong choice. . . . Instead, [he] was required to show that FPI’s “reasons [were] false [and] that retaliation was the real reason for the adverse action.” . . .
Moreover, [he] presented no evidence at the summary judgment stage or on appeal to rebut FPI’s stated reasons for his furlough and termination. To the contrary, [he] concedes that he was not the only person in his department who was furloughed, or whose position was eliminated to save costs in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.
. . ..
[He] failed to establish that unlawful discrimination motivated FPI’s decision to demote, furlough, and fire him. . . . As explained above, it is undisputed that [he] regularly failed to clock in and out, and that he left his team after a major production issue. His argument that those errors did not warrant demoting him are insufficient to establish pretext. And [he] did not provide any evidence suggesting that FPI used the COVID-19 pandemic as a cover-up for discrimination when it furloughed and fired him.
