?An employee’s vague claims of discriminatory conduct toward himself and others are insufficient to prove either discrimination or retaliation, a federal district court ruled. The court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment.
The plaintiff was employed as a quality control manager by an automotive components manufacturer from November 2018 until September 2020. In March 2019, his employer became aware of sexual harassment allegations from a former temporary worker against the plaintiff. The plaintiff denied the allegations, which were uncorroborated. He received a brief suspension and no further discipline.
He claimed that he made numerous reports to the HR manager of discriminatory behavior directed at him or others starting in June 2019 and continuing until November 2019. He asserted that co-workers ridiculed him about his weight and that Japanese supervisors and employees made racist jokes on a regular basis. In particular, he complained that a junior quality manager under his supervision sometimes joked about Germans and Nazis, knowing that the plaintiff was of German heritage. He also claimed that his travel was restricted because Japanese management disliked his Mohawk hairstyle. The plaintiff raised concerns to the director of operations about what he perceived as discriminatory conduct.
The plaintiff also asserted that he reported discriminatory treatment directed toward Black employees to the HR manager. He said his Japanese manager had directed him to lower performance evaluation scores for members of his team because “we do not like to promote Black people.” The plaintiff complained to the HR manager about the requested changes and claimed that the HR manager agreed with his concerns.
On Oct. 11, 2019, the plaintiff discovered a parts defect impacting the company’s biggest customer and notified the customer promptly. However, the plaintiff left work at 5 p.m. to attend his daughter’s Girl Scout function, leaving two assistant quality managers and two quality engineers to address the issue. Management confronted him several days later about leaving work as others were dealing with the defective part issue.
In August 2019, the employer changed its timekeeping policy and began requiring all employees to clock in and out for their shifts. On Nov. 12, 2019, the plaintiff’s manager emailed him asking why he had not clocked in or out since Sept. 10, 2019. When the plaintiff failed to respond, the manager sent a follow-up email. The plaintiff responded “I have not really thought about it being a priority given what the current situation of quality is right now. I will try to remember to clock in and out. That can be a bit tough seeing as I haven’t had to clock in or out for the last 20 years or so.” The plaintiff was given an oral warning for failing to comply with the timekeeping requirement. The plaintiff refused to sign the document memorializing the meeting.
Several weeks later the plaintiff met with the director of operations, the HR manager and the quality control senior manager to discuss deficiencies in his work performance, including failing to complete tasks, lacking necessary skills, missing deadlines and displaying work inconsistent with his supervisory role. The plaintiff was offered the position of engineer, accompanied by a $20,000 reduction in pay, in lieu of his termination. After initially rejecting the demotion, the plaintiff signed a letter confirming his acceptance on Dec. 17.
Six weeks later the plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming that he reported discriminatory behavior toward himself and others between June 2019 and November 2019 and that he subsequently received a negative evaluation and demotion. The plaintiff was late to work four times in early January. The employer furloughed most of its employees, including the plaintiff, in March 2020 due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff’s job was eliminated In September 2020 as part of a cost-saving reduction in force (RIF). The plaintiff filed suit alleging retaliation, racial discrimination and national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To prevail on the retaliation claim, the plaintiff had to present evidence that he opposed the employer’s unlawful practices “in a reasonable manner and with a reasonable and good faith belief that the practices violated Title VII,” the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky said. While the allegations of protected activity don’t need to “be lodged with absolute formality, clarity, or precision,” the plaintiff must allege more than “a vague charge of discrimination,” the court said. Further, although the plaintiff argued that his reports of alleged discriminatory conduct between June and November 2019 were the cause of the adverse employment decisions—his demotion in December 2019 and his furlough and termination in March 2020 and September 2020, respectively—temporal proximity is not enough to meet his burden, the court said.
With regard to his demotion, the plaintiff did not identify the decision-makers or demonstrate they knew of his reports in opposition to alleged workplace discrimination, the court said, adding “the decision-maker’s knowledge of the protected activity is an essential element of the prima facie case of unlawful retaliation.”
In addition, the plaintiff’s reports of discriminatory conduct and his EEOC charge occurred more than two months before the furlough and more than eight months before his ultimate termination, which is insufficient to create an inference of retaliation, according to the court. Further, the court found the plaintiff couldn’t rely on temporal proximity to prove causation relating to the filing of the EEOC charge because of this timing.
Even if the plaintiff had met his initial burden of proof, the court found the employer had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons—poor job performance and pandemic-related staffing decisions—for its employment decisions.
The plaintiff then attempted to demonstrate that the reasons offered for the adverse employment decisions were pretextual. Although he asserted that he was qualified for his position and was demoted in response to his opposition to discriminatory acts, he could point to no specifics of alleged discriminatory acts, the court said. “It is not entirely clear when the acts occurred, to whom the acts were reported (besides [the HR manager]), and what manager knew of the alleged discriminatory acts,” the court said. Repeating that the plaintiff had not identified which decision-makers were responsible for his demotion and whether they knew of his opposition activity, the court found that he failed to “show his efforts opposing discrimination were a factor considered by the decision-makers in demoting him, which is fatal to his retaliation claim.”
Further, the court said, the plaintiff’s “repeated reliance on statements he attributes to [the HR manager] and others must be viewed with some skepticism—especially if it is not supported by the testimony of others in the record.” The court granted summary judgment to the employer on the retaliation claim.
Racial and National Origin Discrimination Claims
Turning to the racial and national origin discrimination claims, the court noted that the plaintiff must prove that: 1) he is a member of a protected class, 2) he was qualified for his job, 3) he suffered an adverse employment decision, and 4) he was replaced by a person outside the protected class or treated differently than similarly situated nonprotected employees.
The employer contended that the plaintiff was not qualified for the quality control manager position because of his history of poor job performance. The court found this reliance on the performance issues asserted as the basis for the adverse employment decision was inappropriate, stressing that it must focus on the plaintiff’s objective qualifications in determining whether he is qualified for the job. The plaintiff, pointing to the employer’s decision to hire him for the position and his resume, met this burden, the court said. However, the plaintiff failed to prove that he was singled out by the employer for the RIF due to his race or national origin—an essential element of the prima facie case.
Finally, the plaintiff was unable to prove the employer’s stated reasons for his demotion and termination following the RIF were pretextual. “[The plaintiff’s] disagreement with [the employer’s] assessment of his performance as QC Manager does not negate facts that he concedes—including that he did not clock in or clock out for a period of two months, or that he left work during a significant production emergency involving a major customer,” the court noted. Adding that it also is uncontested that the plaintiff was late and missed work on numerous occasions, the court said he had not shown that his absences did not impact his performance or that of others. The court granted summary judgment on all claims.
Browning v. Franklin Precision Industry Inc., W.D. Ky., No. 1:21-cv-00071 (March 30, 2023).
Rosemarie Lally, J.D., is a freelance legal writer based in Washington, D.C.
