United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE'S APRIL 30, 2019 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS, JUDGE
employment dispute, Plaintiff Sharron Keller, pro
se, asserts claims against Defendant Clean Harbors, Inc.
for alleged gender discrimination and retaliation under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000
et seq., the Equal Pay Act (EPA), 29 U.S.C. §
206(d), and Michigan's Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act
(ECLRA), M.C.L. § 37.2202 et seq.
before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's April 30, 2019
Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 63.) The Magistrate Judge
recommends that the Court grant Defendant's motion for
summary judgment. Plaintiff raises nine objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (ECF No.
65.) Defendant opposes Plaintiff's objections. (ECF No.
66.) Defendant also raises two objections to part of the
Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation. (ECF No.
64.) Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant's objections.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of
Plaintiff's and Defendant's objections. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court OVERRULES
Plaintiff's objections, SUSTAINS IN PART
Defendant's objections, ACCEPTS and
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation as set forth in this Order, and
GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary
Standard of Review
Court performs a de novo review of those portions of
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which
Plaintiff and Defendant have objected. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court need not and does not perform
a de novo review of the report's unobjected-to findings.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Moreover,
an objection that “does nothing more than state a
disagreement with a magistrate's suggested resolution, or
simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an
‘objection' as that term is used in this
context.” Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F.Supp. 2d.
743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004). Indeed, the purpose of an
objection to a report and recommendation is to provide the
Court “with the opportunity to consider the specific
contentions of the parties and to correct any errors
immediately.” Id. (quoting United States
v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir.1981)).
raises nine objections to the Magistrate's Report and
Recommendation. Three objections (1, 5, and 7) challenge the
Magistrate Judge's finding that Plaintiff failed to
establish her prima facie discrimination case. Plaintiff's
other objections (2-4, 8, and 9) challenge the Magistrate
Judge's finding that Plaintiff did not establish pretext.
Plaintiff's Objections # 1, 5 and 7
Objection #1, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge
erred in finding that Plaintiff did not establish all
elements of her prima facie claim of gender-based disparate
treatment. The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff did
not establish that Plaintiff was replaced by someone outside
of the protected class or treated differently than similarly
situated male employees for the same or similar conduct.
Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge erred by
considering the testimony of David Parry, Clean Harbors
Environmental Services former president, but not considering
Plaintiff's own declaration which Plaintiff contends
provides sufficient evidence of discrimination.
objection #1 is overruled. The Magistrate Judge did consider
Plaintiff's claims and statements but found that
Plaintiff relied solely on conjecture to satisfy the fourth
element of her prima facie case. Moreover, the evidence
submitted by Plaintiff was insufficient to raise a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff was replaced
by a new male employee.
Objection #5, Plaintiff states the Magistrate Judge erred by
not considering the declaration of Carly Graham and certain
gender and discrimination policies used by Defendant. This
objection is overruled. As an initial matter, there is no
indication that the Graham declaration and the company
policies in the record were not considered by the Magistrate
Judge. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to explain how this evidence
would create a material question of fact as to whether
Defendant's officers knew about Plaintiff's alleged
complaints. As Defendant correctly notes in its response,
this objection requires the Court to speculate on several
factors. It does not provide evidence to support its
assertions. It is therefore overruled.
Objection # 7, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge
erred in finding that Plaintiff could not prove a prima facie
case for retaliation. The Magistrate Judge found that
Plaintiff did not produce any evidence demonstrating that
David Parry, who was responsible for Plaintiff's
termination, knew of Plaintiff's prior complaints
regarding discriminatory employment practices.
Plaintiff's objection does not challenge this finding but
instead seems to list other alleged decisionmakers who were
aware of her prior complaints. This is not sufficient
evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether David Parry knew of the same complaints. Objection #
7 is therefore overruled.
Plaintiff's Objections # 2, ...