?Takeaway: This case serves as a reminder for employers of the importance of putting employees on notice of unsatisfactory behavior and documenting disciplinary conversations prior to termination. Indeed, in affirming summary judgment for the employer, the court in this case emphasized that the record was “replete with evidence” of the employer’s concerns about the plaintiff’s repeatedly disrespectful behavior toward other employees. That, coupled with lack of evidence of discriminatory animus, resulted in a victory for the employer.
Employers should also take steps to ensure consistency in their application of company policies and across their disciplinary and termination decisions. In this case, the plaintiff was unable to point to any other employees who engaged in similar behavior whom the employer did not terminate. In fact, the employer had acted consistently by firing another employee for similar conduct. Consistent enforcement of an employer’s policies not only minimizes the risk of liability but also promotes feelings of fairness among employees, minimizing the risk of litigation in the first place.
?An employee’s assertions that a company is racist and that HR made comments about the employee’s retirement plans were insufficient to establish race and age discrimination when the employer provided evidence of its ongoing concerns about the employee’s behavior, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
A former material handler filed the discrimination claim against her employer, Dana Commercial Vehicle Manufacturing, alleging that her age and race motivated her firing. Dana explained that it terminated the plaintiff not due to her race or age, but rather for her repeatedly disrespectful behavior toward her co-workers.
The district court used the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to analyze the plaintiff’s claim under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act.
Under that framework, developed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to assess claims based on circumstantial evidence, the plaintiff must first establish a prima-facie case of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment decision. Once the employer meets that burden, “the plaintiff must demonstrate that the employer’s proffered nondiscriminatory reason was not the true reason for the employment decision, but rather a pretext for discrimination.”
To show pretext, a plaintiff must establish that the employer’s proffered reason has no basis in fact, did not actually motivate the challenged conduct or was insufficient to warrant the challenged conduct.
The district court concluded that the plaintiff had established neither a prima-facie case of discrimination nor that Dana gave pretextual reasons for her firing. It therefore granted summary judgment in Dana’s favor, and the plaintiff appealed.
The plaintiff did not challenge the district court’s conclusion that she could not establish pretext under the first (“no basis in fact”) method of showing pretext.
As to the second method (“did not actually motivate”), the court found that the plaintiff pointed to no evidence of a racially hostile work environment, except her unsupported assertions that Dana was a racist company.
She also failed to point to any statements indicating that Dana terminated her due to her age, relying instead on inferences from comments made by HR professionals about her retirement. For instance, after the plaintiff raised the subject of her retirement plans during a disciplinary meeting, an HR generalist later asked her if she had a retirement date.
The court concluded that the plaintiff could not show that her disrespectful conduct did not actually motivate her termination, particularly given that the record was “replete with evidence showing that Dana was concerned with [the plaintiff’s] treatment of other employees.”
The plaintiff also failed to demonstrate that Dana’s reason for terminating her was “insufficient to warrant the challenged conduct.” While she purported to offer seven alleged comparators who she says Dana did not terminate even though they engaged in the same or worse conduct, the evidence established that Dana had terminated one of the seven and that, unlike the plaintiff, the remaining comparators engaged in isolated incidents only.
The court therefore concluded that the plaintiff had “not produced sufficient evidence showing that her repeated disrespectful behavior to other employees was not the motivator” and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Dana.
The court has designated the case “not for publication” in the Federal Reporter. While the court’s local rules permit parties to cite to an unpublished opinion in its legal proceedings, an unpublished opinion is not binding authority for the court or any lower courts. The court decides whether to designate a case for publication based on various factors—for example, whether the decision establishes a new rule of law.
Sims-Madison v. Dana Commercial Vehicle Manufacturing LLC, 6th Cir., No. 21-5706 (March 28, 2022).
Natalie F. Bare is an attorney in the Philadelphia office of Duane Morris LLP.
