Sixth Circuit: No Summary Judgment for Employer in Sex-Plus Race Title VII Case Or Honest Belief Defense Based on Cursory Investigation

Last week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for the employer in a Title VII case.  Shazor v. Professional Transportation Management, Ltd., No. 13-3253 (6^th Cir. 2-19-14).  Among other things, the Court held that the plaintiff could survive summary judgment even though she was replaced by a female because her replacement was not an African-American female.  In other words, the Court employed a sex-plus analysis and decided to not separate her sex from her race. The Court also found that the plaintiff could show that the employer’s explanation for her termination – that she had been dishonest – was pretextual simply by creating an issue of fact as to whether her challenged statements were false.  The Court also rejected the employer’s honest belief defense because it only interviewed one witness about whether the plaintiff had lied during a board meeting and never questioned her about her motive for the misstatements.   While the sole interview might have been sufficient to discharge her for “overt misconduct,” it was insufficient to determine the truth or motive behind her statements.

According to the Court’s opinion, the defendant employer provided management services to a transit authority and, among other things, assigned plaintiff to be the transit authority’s CEO even though she had worked in public transit only two years.  When the plaintiff refused to participate in educational seminars that her employer provided, some of its management began questioning  her loyalty and whether she was attempting to be hired directly by the transit authority.  She was referred to in some emails as a “prima donna” and in one email as a “bi*ch.”  In her positive performance evaluation, she was criticized for poor teamwork.

Almost a year later, a dispute arose about two representations that the plaintiff made to the board of the transit authority about her employer’s willingness to provide training and consulting services concerning a labor-relations issue.  She had recommended the retention of a competing firm (which had a reputation of being anti-union) to provide training services and testified this had been the recommendation of the HR Director and General Counsel.  (The General Counsel later told her supervisor that the decision had been the plaintiff’s).  When questioned by the Board, she claimed that her new supervisor was too busy to handle union negotiations.  Some board members requested to meet specially with her supervisor to confirm this. There was some suspicion that she was not being honest because her supervisor had been active consulting with the authority in the past and she had a reputation of keeping her employer at arm’s length.   Plaintiff produced an email where her supervisor said he had another appointment on the date when the union wanted to meet and which showed that she had requested him to submit a proposal to provide union relations training.   When the meeting was held with the Board and her supervisor, the supervisor said that the plaintiff had lied when she said he was not available.  He fired her a few days later for being dishonest with the Board about his availability and for denying her role in selecting a competing firm to provide the union relations training.   His investigation consisted of one conversation with the authority’s General Counsel.     A Hispanic woman was eventually selected to replace the plaintiff as CEO.

The Court questioned the plaintiff’s argument that the emails constituted direct evidence of discrimination by essentially referring to her as an “angry black woman” or “uppity black woman.”  The email authors were not her supervisors or decisionmakers.  “Viewed as a whole,” their emails “might only show “occasional[]” sexist and racist comments, which would not be enough to establish direct evidence of discriminatory intent.”  Moreover, the Court was unsure if the cat’s paw theory could be used where the email authors were never her supervisors, had never sent them to the supervisor who terminated her and had sent the emails more than a year before her termination.  However, the Court ultimately decided to not rule on that issue because it found that she had presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to survive summary judgment.

 

The Court held that the plaintiff had shown that she was replaced by someone outside her protected class.  First, plaintiff is African-American and her replacement is Hispanic.   As for her sex discrimination claim, the Court refused to separate her gender from her race for purposes of evaluating her prima facie case:

Moving to Plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim, we find that it cannot be untangled from her claim for race discrimination. Naturally, “where two bases of discrimination exist, the two grounds cannot be neatly reduced to distinct components.” Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93, 110 (2d Cir. 2010). The Supreme Court has acknowledged this truism and held that a plaintiff can maintain a claim for discrimination on the basis of a protected classification considered in combination with another factor. See Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542, 544 (1971) (per curiam). In many of these so-called “sex-plus” cases, the plaintiff’s subclass combines a characteristic protected by Title VII with one that is not. See id. We have therefore required sex-plus plaintiffs to show unfavorable treatment as compared to a matching subcategory of the opposite sex. See Derungs v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 374 F.3d 428, 438–39 & n.8 (6th Cir. 2004).

In the case now before us, both classifications—race and sex—are protected by Title VII. These characteristics do not exist in isolation. African American women are subjected to unique stereotypes that neither African American men nor white women must endure. Cf. Lam v. Univ. of Hawai’i, 40 F.3d 1551, 1562 (9th Cir. 1994)(discussing sex-and-race Title VII claim brought by Asian woman). And Title VII does not permit plaintiffs to fall between two stools when their claim rests on multiple protected grounds. Thus in Hafford v. Seidner, 183 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 1999), we held that a plaintiff could rely on evidence of religious harassment to buttress his claim for racial harassment, even though the religious harassment claim could not survive independently.

 . . . If a female African American plaintiff (for example) establishes a sufficient foundation of discrimination, a defendant cannot undermine her prima facie case by showing that white women and African American men received the same treatment. See id. at 1032–33; see also  Gorzynski, 596 F.3d at 109–10. The realities of the workplace, let alone the purpose of Title VII, will not allow such an artificial approach. . . . .

The Court rejected the employer’s argument that the question should be whether the plaintiff can identify anyone similarly situated outside her protected class who was treated better.

This method is especially useful in cases where the plaintiff is not terminated, is not replaced, or is not replaced with a single person.. . .  But the replacement method works especially well when a plaintiff is terminated and the employer hires a single replacement to do the same job. That is precisely what happened in this case.

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the white male temporary replacement should have been considered to be her replacement because he was temporary.  The Court also left open the employer’s ability to show at trial that it had put forth four candidates to replace the plaintiff and the transit authority chose to hire the Hispanic woman.

 As for pretext, the employer explained that it had terminated the plaintiff because she lied to the transit authority board.  The Court found that the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to prove that this explanation was pretextual because it lacked basis in fact.  In short, she produced sufficient evidence to question whether her statements to the board “were clearly untrue.” 

A jury can consider Hock’s and Plaintiff’s credibility and weigh the evidence accordingly. We cannot.

As for her denial to the Board that she was involved in the decision to recommend her employer’s competitor, the Court found the employer could not prevail on summary judgment because it produced only hearsay evidence to show that the plaintiff had lied.  Instead of producing deposition testimony or an affidavit from the General Counsel refuting his role in the decision and putting that decision on the plaintiff, the employer produced only an affidavit from the plaintiff’s supervisor claiming that this is what he had been told by the General Counsel.  Moreover, “Plaintiff’s sworn testimony that she did not have a role in the retention of MPI is enough to create a genuine issue of fact.”  

Finally, the Court rejected the employer’s reliance on the honest belief doctrine and created a higher threshold for this doctrine when the employee’s misconduct is based on lying and the employer failed to question her about the motive for her misstatements: 

“If the employer had an honest belief in the proffered basis for the adverse employment action, and that belief arose from reasonable reliance on the particularized facts before the employer when it made the decision, the asserted reason will not be deemed pretextual even if it was erroneous.” . . .  “The key inquiry in assessing whether an employer holds such an honest belief is whether the employer made a reasonably informed and considered decision before taking the complained-of action.”

Hock’s investigation into Plaintiff’s two purported lies consisted of speaking with one person, Desmond, about the retention of MPI. Perhaps this single interview could satisfy the requirement that the investigation turn up particularized facts if Hock had fired Plaintiff for overt misconduct.  . . . .  But Hock fired Plaintiff for lying—not   just uttering a falsehood, but doing so “with intent to deceive.” Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 1305 (1993). One conversation did not establish sufficient particularized facts about the truth behind Plaintiff’s statements, let alone her motive. Defendants have therefore failed to establish a foundation for the honest belief doctrine to apply.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Sixth Circuit Defines “Direct Evidence” and Again Holds Managers Can Be Held to Higher Standard Than Subordinates in Discrimination Claims

Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a reverse race discrimination claim brought by a retail manager terminated for making racially insensitive comments in violation of company policy. Martinez v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., No. 11-2189 (6^th Cir. 1-10-13). The plaintiff had been fired in February 2010 for "violating company rules prohibiting rude and boisterous conduct, or any form of discriminatory or harassing behavior" following an internal workplace investigation which revealed that she had, among other things, referred to a state public assistance card used by several employees as a "ghetto card." The Court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that she had produced direct evidence of discrimination and that she had identified similarly-situated employees who had received better treatment. Her evidence could not be "direct evidence" because it required the listener to make inferences. Moreover, none of the employees she had identified had either been proven to refer to the assistance card as a "ghetto card" or were of the same managerial rank in the employer's organization.

As for the plaintiff's claim that she had produced direct evidence of discrimination, the Court found that neither statement constituted direct evidence. The Court defined "direct evidence" of discrimination as follows:

Direct evidence explains itself. As this Circuit has noted, such evidence does not require the fact finder to draw any inferences to reach the conclusion that unlawful discrimination was at least a motivating factor. See Rowan v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., Inc., 360 F.3d 544, 548 (6th Cir. 2004) ("Direct evidence is evidence that proves the existence of a fact without requiring any inferences.").

The plaintiff claimed her "direct evidence" consisted of two statements. In the first, a manager responded affirmatively – over an objection by the employer's counsel to the ambiguous form of the question -- when asked "So you mean, you would agree [based on] the information you have, race was an issue in the discharge." After the deposition, the witness "clarified" her answer with an affidavit, stating: "To the extent that Plaintiff's counsel interprets my statements as indicating that Plaintiff was discharged because of her race, this is an inaccurate interpretation of my testimony. Instead, I believe that racially charged comments by Plaintiff may have led to her discharge." In light of the "poorly phrased question" and the witness's clarifying affidavit, the Court concluded that her affirmative answer "cannot reasonably be construed to mean that [the plaintiff's] race was the reason for her termination." On the contrary, the ambiguous nature of the question "requires the kind of inferential speculation as to the proper subject of the phrase 'race was an issue in the discharge' that fails to come within the ambit of direct evidence."

In the second statement, the plaintiff recounted a conversation she had with the company investigators during the investigation. The plaintiff claimed that after she inquired whether she was to be discharged, they responded that they would "go to bat for you, but you have to remember that this is Flint and you know the history of this store." The plaintiff explained that this statement referred to an earlier incident when a white manager had been fired after complaints from African-American customers. However, the plaintiff's affidavit did not reveal that the investigators were asked to clarify or explain their reference to "the history" of the Flint store or that they did so. Like the earlier testimony, the Court rejected this as "direct evidence" because it required the listener to infer its meaning.

The Court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that she had identified similarly-situated employees who received better treatment. Although the plaintiff claimed that a black assistant manager had also discussed the "ghetto card," the internal investigation found that claim to be unsubstantiated because the assistant manager denied it and there were no other witnesses. Moreover, the plaintiff's "conduct was admittedly more pervasive and severe than merely uttering the term "ghetto card." While other employees had used the term and were subjected to "policy reviews," they were not managers. 

In establishing that two people are similarly-situated, a "plaintiff need not demonstrate an exact correlation with the employee receiving more favorable treatment." . . . Instead, "the plaintiff [must] demonstrate that he or she is similarly situated to the [claimed comparator] in all relevant respects." . . . In the disciplinary context, the Sixth Circuit has held that to be found similarly situated, "the plaintiff and [her] proposed comparator must have engaged in acts of 'comparable seriousness.'" . . . To make this assessment, a court must look "to certain factors, such as whether the individuals 'have dealt with the same supervisor, have been subject to the same standards and have engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer's treatment of them for it.'" (citations omitted).

The Court found "the degree of misconduct is sufficiently dissimilar to remove [the assistant manager] from consideration as a bona fide comparator for purposes of establishing the prima facie case." In addition, the plaintiff's role as a manager "could reasonably justify holding her to a more stringent standard of conduct than that applied" to an assistant manager.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.


 

Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Age Discrimination Claim

This morning, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an age discrimination of a supervisor whose position has been eliminated in a reduction in force. Metz v. Titanium Metals Corp., No. 11- 3117 (6th Cir. 3-29-12). The Court concluded that employees laid off in a reduction in force have a higher standard of proof and cannot show that they were replaced by a younger individual when their duties were merely absorbed by the remaining employees. The Court also rejected the argument that references to the tenure and planned retirement of an older employee and the “new ideas” of the younger employee constituted direct evidence of age discrimination. Finally, the Court found nothing discriminatory in using a different standard to evaluate and compare employees for purposes of a RIF than is used in their annual performance evaluations.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was a shipping supervisor who agreed to the promotion of a much younger supervisor to help him and an older supervisor when the company was experiencing record sales volume. At the time, the HR Manager indicated that the new employee would bring new ideas and might be able to replace the oldest supervisor when he retired in the near future (having already worked there for 42 years at that point). When the recession hit and sales volumes decreased dramatically, the company reduced costs by, among other things, reducing the number of shipping supervisors by one position. The company then evaluated all of the salaried employees and ranked them to determine which employees would be retained in the existing positions. The plaintiff ranked lower than his co-workers on this survey and was ultimately laid off.

The Court rejected the argument that the HR Manager’s comments constituted direct evidence of age discrimination. Tenure is not the same as age. References to the younger employee’s “new ideas” was ambiguous. Finally, mention of the planned retirement of the oldest employee did not constitute discrimination.

The Court also rejected the argument that the younger employee replaced the plaintiff because he had initially been promoted – with the plaintiff’s agreement – to help him. In addition, there was a reduction in the number of shipping supervisor position. Finally, the younger employee absorbed the plaintiff’s duties into his existing duties; they were not new duties.

Finally, the Court rejected the argument that management manipulated the RIF evaluation ratings to retain the younger employee over the plaintiff when they had traditionally received the same performance evaluation ratings. First, the employer retained the oldest shipping supervisor. There was also evidence that the plaintiff’s RIF rating was based in part because he “had occasionally been disrespectful toward management, had failed to be forthcoming about problems, and had failed to resolve conflicts among employees in [his] department.” Management had been unanimous in ranking the younger employee higher than him. The fact that their performance review ratings had been similar and the RIF evaluation was different was like comparing apples and oranges. One rated the employees against the same standard; one compared them to each other.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Sixth Circuit Dismisses ADEA Claims by Employees Who Claimed They Were Terminated For Budget Reasons Rather than For Violating Confidentiality Policy.

Today, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims by two employees who alleged that they had been terminated on account of their age because the new CEO had sought to increase turnover among (more expensive) employees with more seniority so that he could hire less expensive, newer employees. Allen v. Highlands Hospital Corp., No. 07-6414 (10/21/08). The plaintiffs admitted to the conduct which the hospital explained motivated it to terminate their employment, but the plaintiffs denied their conduct was the actual reason for their termination. Indeed, the court was sympathetic that the plaintiffs had not actually violated patient confidentiality as alleged, but still gave more weight to the hospital’s argument that it held an honest belief that the plaintiffs had violated its HIPAA policy based on a thorough investigation by the human resources department. In any event, the court found that there was no evidence that the hospital’s business strategy to reduce its budget for employee compensation had a disparate impact on older employees and did not constitute direct evidence of age discrimination.

The plaintiffs were terminated for violating the hospital’s HIPAA policy when one of the plaintiffs obtained the x-rays of her own granddaughter (at the parent’s request) from the other plaintiff without having a signed authorization from the parent of the granddaughter. The grandmother plaintiff had been told by another employee that the parent’s signature was mandatory, but there was no written policy governing the situation. Moreover, the plaintiff grandparent then forged the parent’s signature on the authorization form, back-dated the form and placed it in the medical record (which may have shown knowledge of her own guilt in violating an unwritten policy). Both employees were terminated for violation of the HIPAA policy, which the hospital considered to be a major offense.

The Court acknowledged that the hospital’s actions in this case were unduly harsh: “the facts of this case are not a “textbook example” of a privacy violation for which a hospital would usually take such serious action against its long-time employees. The record shows that [plaintiff] was not only the biological grandmother of the patient, but also was involved in her care and guardianship (although [plaintiff] was admittedly not [the granddaughter’s] legal guardian). Moreover, [the hospital] does not dispute that [the mother], as [the granddaughter’s] mother and legal guardian, in fact gave [plaintiff] verbal authorization to retrieve the x-rays. The plaintiffs have thus undoubtedly pointed to a weakness in the Hospital’s policy, if for no other reason than that this case highlights the potential ambiguity caused by the lack of detail in the employee manual’s prohibition against an unauthorized release. But the fact that the Hospital would benefit from developing a more detailed policy on this issue does not mean that [the plaintiffs] have succeeded in creating a genuine issue of material fact about whether HHC’s stated reason for terminating them was a pretext designed to hide age-based discrimination. We thus agree with the Hospital that, in determining if the plaintiffs have raised a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext, we should consider not whether [the plaintiffs] actually breached patient confidentiality, but rather whether the Hospital had an honestly held belief that they had committed a Group I offense.”

To support their age discrimination claims, the plaintiffs produced evidence that the hospital’s new CEO sought to increase employee turnover among more senior (and presumably more expensive) employees. According to the court, the hospital’s budget manager testified “one of [the CEO’s] strategies was to terminate employees based on seniority to facilitate the hiring of new, less costly employees. In fact, [the CEO] increased the annual turnover rate from 2% to 28%. [The budget manager] did not know whether the cost-cutting measures had a disproportionate effect on older employees, but she said that [the CEO’s] focus was at all times on improving HHC’s financial situation.” In any event, the Court of Appeals found that this testimony did not constitute direct evidence of age discrimination.

“Indeed, the Supreme Court in Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), has specifically held that the strategies discussed by [the budget manager] are permissible methods for employers to cut costs: When the employer’s decision is wholly motivated by factors other than age, the problem of inaccurate and stigmatizing stereotypes disappears. This is true even if the motivating factor is correlated with age . . . . On average, an older employee has had more years in the work force than a younger employee, and thus may well have accumulated more years of service with a particular employer. Yet an employee’s age is analytically distinct from his years of service. An employee who is younger than 40, and therefore outside the class of older workers as defined by the ADEA, see 29 U.S.C. § 631(a), may have worked for a particular employer his entire career, while an older worker may have been newly hired. Because age and years of service are analytically distinct, an employer can take account of one while ignoring the other, and thus it is incorrect to say that a decision based on years of service is necessarily ‘age based.’”

Moreover, the court found insufficient evidence that the CEO’s budget practice had a disparate impact on older workers either. The hospital’s expert produced evidence that the hospital’s increased turnover did not result in a disproportionate reduction in the number of employees over the age of 40. “ Nor is the plaintiffs’ disparate-impact claim salvaged by the allegation that the number of terminations of those over 40 years of age increased from 14.3% to 62.5% of all terminations between 2002 and 2003. As the district court noted, this data is not statistically significant because the pools from which those percentages were drawn were very small—i.e., there were only 21 terminations in 2002 and 16 terminations in 2003.”

Finally, “[t]he plaintiffs, however, have failed to satisfy their burden of isolating and identifying a specific employment practice that disproportionately impacts employees who are at least 40 years old. As we have already explained, the plaintiffs have at best alleged that HHC desired to reduce costs associated with its highly paid workforce, including those costs associated with employees with greater seniority. But the plaintiffs have not established that this corporate desire evolved into an identifiable practice that disproportionately harms workers who are at least 40 years old. Because Allen and Slone have simply “point[ed] to a generalized policy,” as opposed to specific practice, they have therefore failed to raise a genuine question of material fact with respect to their disparate impact claim.”

The plaintiffs also produced evidence that a the supervisor of a hospital contractor told one of its employees that the employee should start looking for another job because it looked as though all of the older employees would be let go. The court also rejected this as direct evidence that the plaintiffs were terminated on account of their age because the solitary statement was not made by their supervisors and was, instead, made in connection with another employer.

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0381p-06.pdf.


NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.