United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 14) AND DISMISSING CASE
AVERN
COHN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I.
Introduction
This is
an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff Gwen Rougeau
(Rougeau), an African-American, is suing her former employer,
defendant Dapco Industries (Dapco) claiming race
discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e.
Before
the Court is Dapco's motion for summary judgment. For the
reasons that follow, the motion will be granted.
II.
Background
The
material facts as gleaned from the parties' papers
follow.
A.
Dapco Generally
Dapco
manufactures fuel valves, filters, fittings, and other fuel
handling components for the small engine market including
recreational vehicles, personal watercraft and lawn car
equipment. Dapco is family-owned and located in Dexter,
Michigan. The company employs approximately 125 people, most
of whom work as assemblers of the various parts Dapco
manufactures and sells.
Dapco
provides its employees with an employee handbook which
contains the company's Equal Employment Opportunity
Policy. See Dapco's Exhibit 2 - Equal Employment
Opportunity Policy and Dapco's Exhibit 3 - Open Door
Policy. Dapco prohibits any forms of harassment, joking
remarks, or other abusive conduct directed at employees
because of their age, sex, race, and other protected groups
under both federal and state law. Dapco also requires written
notice of any complaint related to equal employment, i.e.
harassment, which Dapco agrees to investigate and notify the
employee of the resolution. See id. Dapco also
prohibits workplace violence, including, but not limited to,
aggressive verbal attacks, and conduct that threatens,
intimidates, coerces or interferes with employees. See
Dapco's Exhibit 4 - Workplace Violence Policy.
Regarding
performance and discipline, Dapco's employee handbook
provides for the option of progressive discipline but the
company retains the right to terminate employees at will, to
start progressive discipline at any level in the process, or
immediately terminate an employee for cause. A final warning,
for example, can be the first course of discipline and is
considered active for six months. Further violations of any
Dapco policy during that period can result in immediate
termination. See Dapco's Exhibit 5 - Disciplinary Policy.
B.
Rougeau's Employment at Dapco
Rougeau
was hired by Dapco as an assembler on April 5, 2011.
Assemblers sit at an area/table and assembles the different
parts that Dapco manufactures. Assemblers assemble parts
depending on the work area they are assigned to. Each
area/table typically has an assembler who is also a team
leader. The team leader ensures that the assemblers have the
correct parts to work with, follow the schedule, and complete
their assigned tasks. The team leader is also responsible for
the quality of the assembled parts.
During
the majority of the time Rougeau worked at Dapco, she was an
assembler. She then became a team leader on the afternoon
shift. Fewer employees worked on the afternoon shift compared
to the day shift. In February 2015, Rougeau's afternoon
shift supervisor promoted her to group leader/night lead and
Rougeau got a raise. Rougeau was the only African-American
team leader at Dapco. A few months later, in July 2015, Dapco
eliminated the assembly work on the afternoon shift and
transferred those employees, including Rougeau, to the day
shift.
After
the transfer to the day shift, Rougeau retained her title of
group leader and hourly rate (minus a $ .25 shift premium
that affected all of the transferred employees. However,
because all of the team leader positions on the day shift
were filled, her supervisor, Jeff Carpenter, considered
Rougeau “inactive” as a team leader. However,
Carpenter stated at deposition that he does not recall
telling Rougeau she was inactive and stated she still
retained the authority of a team leader but did not have an
actual team to lead. All of the Rougeau's employment
evaluations in the record are very favorable.
Almost
a year after being on the day shift, in April 2016, Rougeau
received a Final Written Warning, which states in relevant
part:
On Tuesday, April 5, 2016, it was brought to the
management's attention that you said inappropriate
comments directed at another employee. The comments you made
were considered threatening in nature. The exchange of words
was overheard by at least one other co-worker in the are. It
is unacceptable for any employee to use threatening language
towards a co-worker.
. . . .
Any additional occurrences of harassment of any type will
result in further disciplinary action including suspension or
immediate Separation of Employment from Dapco Industries. I
have read and understand the terms of this Final Written
Warning.
See
Dapco's Exhibit 10 - Final Written Warning. This was
Rougeau's first disciplinary action and Dapco
investigated the incident before issuing the discipline. The
Investigation Notes reveal that Rougeau told a co-worker, a
Caucasian, to “keep my name out of your mouth.”
When the co-worker said she did not have to listen to her,
Rougeau responded “say it [my name] again and
you'll see bitch.” The co-worker also complained
that Rougeau was “cutting her off lately, stepping
right in front of her.”
A few
months later, in August 2016, Rougeau was involved in another
incident with a different co-worker, an African-American.
According to Rougeau, she “bumped” this co-worker
at their lockers. The co-worker responded to Rougeau by
saying “if you bump me again, I'm going to slap the
fuck out of you.” In response, Rougeau stated:
“Well slap me then. Go ahead and slap me.” See
Dapco's Exhibit 14 - Deposition of Rougeau. Dapco
investigated. The Investigation Notes generally confirm
Rougeau's version of the events. Dapco determined that
both Rougeau and the co-worker were to blame for the
incident.
That
same day, August 15, 2016, Dapco terminated Rougeau. The
Separation of Employment letter stated in relevant part:
On Friday August 12, 206, it was brought to management's
attention that your were involved in a verbal altercation
with another employee. Management conducted a thorough
investigation regarding the altercation. Based on the
investigation it was determined that you were partially at
fault. You have been involved in numerous altercations
(employee issues) with co-workers in the past, these have
been discussed with you.
On April 12, 2016, you received a Final Written Warning for
making inappropriate comments ...