United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
V. Parker, District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DE 40)
ANTHONY P. PATTI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Court should GRANT Defendant's July 13,
2017 motion for summary judgment (DE 40) and dismiss with
prejudice the claims set forth in her complaint (DE 1).
However, the Court should deny Defendant's request for an
award of costs and attorney fees associated with this motion
(see DE 40 at 3, 32), as the issues on which this
recommendation is based merited review by the Court.
Barbrie Logan filed this lawsuit pro se against
Defendant MGM Grand Detroit Casino (“Casino”).
The facts underlying Plaintiff's complaint stem from her
employment as a culinary utility person, and her causes of
action include sex discrimination and retaliation in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (DE 1
¶¶ 1-2, 29-38.)
filed an answer and affirmative defenses on March 24, 2016.
Among other things, Defendant asserted that Plaintiff's
claims “may be barred, in whole or in part, by
applicable statute(s) of limitation or limitation period(s),
contractual or otherwise.” (DE 10 ¶ 14.)
Parker referred this case to me for all pretrial proceedings.
Currently before the Court is Defendant's July 13, 2017
motion for summary judgment. In sum, Defendant requests that
the Court “dismiss Plaintiff's claims against it in
their entirety with prejudice, ” and “award
Defendant its costs and attorneys' fees in having to file
the instant Motion.” (DE 40 at 3.)
filed a tardy response, which was nevertheless accepted and
considered, and Defendant filed a reply. (DEs 42, 43.) On
September 19, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff's request
to file a sur-reply. (See DEs 46, 45, 47.) On
October 10, 2017, I entered a notice of determination of
motion without oral argument. (DE 48.) Plaintiff filed a
response to this notice, wherein she noted, among other
things, her expectation “to be heard during oral
argument to designate specific facts and admissions on file
in this case not specified in the written Response.”
(DE 49.) However, the Court has been adequately informed from
the briefing, and this motion is ready for a report and
recommendation on the papers alone.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, “[t]he court shall
grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the case
under governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The Court “views
the evidence, all facts, and any inferences that may be drawn
from the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party.” Pure Tech Sys., Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins.
Co., 95 F. App'x 132, 135 (6th Cir. 2004) (internal
moving party has the initial burden of proving that no
genuine issue of material fact exists . . . .”
Stansberry v. Air Wis. Airlines Corp., 651 F.3d 482,
486 (6th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted); cf.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (e)(2) (providing that if a party
“fails to properly address another party's
assertion of fact, ” then the court may “consider
the fact undisputed for the purposes of the motion.”).
“Once the moving party satisfies its burden, ‘the
burden shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth specific
facts showing a triable issue.'” Wrench LLC v.
Taco Bell Corp., 256 F.3d 446, 453 (6th Cir. 2001)
(quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). The nonmoving party
must “make an affirmative showing with proper evidence
in order to defeat the motion.” Alexander v.
CareSource, 576 F.3d 551, 558 (6th Cir. 2009); see
also Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty.,
432 F. App'x 435, 441 (6th Cir. 2011) (“The
nonmovant must, however, do more than simply show that there
is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . .
[T]here must be evidence upon which a reasonable jury could
return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party to create a
genuine dispute.”) (internal quotation marks and
judgment is appropriate if the evidence favoring the
nonmoving party is merely colorable or is not significantly
probative. City Management Corp. v. United States Chem.
Co., 43 F.3d 244, 254 (6th Cir. 1994). In other words,
summary judgment is appropriate when “a motion for
summary judgment is properly made and supported and the
nonmoving party fails to respond with a showing sufficient to
establish an essential element of its case. . . .”
Stansberry, 651 F.3d at 486 (citing Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986)).
Plaintiff's complaint spans the alleged events of August
1, 2007 through December 4, 2014.
alleged facts underlying Plaintiff's complaint begin on
August 1, 2007, the date of her employment as a
“culinary utility person” at the Casino. (DE 1,
¶ 7.) As a condition of employment, she paid dues and/or
fees to UNITE HERE, Local 24, the labor union. (DE 1 ¶
10.) She began serving as a union steward around May 2008.
(DE 1, ¶ 11.)
May 2009 through December 2013, Plaintiff was the subject of
disciplinary action, filed union grievances, sought FMLA
leave, and, on at least eight (8) occasions, engaged the
services of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). (DE 42
at 5-10, 40-100; DE 42-1 at 1-39; see also DEs 40-7,
40-10, 40- 17.) Plaintiff's complaint further details the
conditions of her employment during 2014. (DE 1, ¶¶
15-26.) Some of the supporting documentation evidences the
• On April 3, 2014, a “Team Member Incident
Report” was issued. Plaintiff was suspended pending
investigation. (DE 40-12.) Plaintiff was to be issued a
three-day suspension based on ...