Banks v. John Deere & Co.
| Citation | 829 F.3d 661 |
| Decision Date | 14 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 15-2058,15-2058 |
| Parties | Lovelle Banks, Plaintiff–Appellant v. John Deere and Company; John Deere Waterloo Works, Defendants–Appellees |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Joseph Gilbert Bertogli, Des Moines, for Plaintiff–Appellant.
Frances M. Haas, Attorney, Cedar Rapids, IA, Frank Boyd Harty, Debra Lynne Hulett, Des Moines, IA, Nyemaster & Goode, for Defendants–Appellees.
Before RILEY, Chief Judge, LOKEN and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Lovelle Banks, an African American man, sued John Deere & Company and John Deere Waterloo Works (collectively, Deere), alleging race discrimination and harassment in employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. , and the Iowa Civil Rights Act of 1965 (ICRA), Iowa Code § 216.1 et seq. The district court1 granted summary judgment to Deere, finding Banks failed to produce sufficient evidence to support his claims. Banks appeals,2 and we affirm.
Banks joined Deere in 2004 and by December 2007 worked his way up to his current position of machinist. Banks operates a grinder on second shift in Department 524 of Deere's Waterloo Works plant, which manufactures tractors. Dean Mullen operates the grinder on first shift, and Sharm Loy operates the grinder on third shift. Both Mullen and Loy are white. Diane Kofron, a white woman, supervised Banks at the relevant time.
Banks is a member of the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (union) and is subject to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the union and Deere. The CBA provided for progressive discipline administered by Deere's Labor Relations Department.
The CBA permitted Deere to impose a three-day suspension if an employee failed to work a scheduled shift. Banks received such a suspension in June 2011. The suspension was “paper only,” meaning Banks never actually served the suspension, but it remained on his disciplinary record for purposes of progressive discipline.
On February 14, 2012, Banks received the next step of discipline—a two-week paper-only suspension for failing to work scheduled overtime. The next step in the disciplinary process would be a thirty-day suspension. On February 28, 2013, Deere and the union agreed that employees who failed to work scheduled overtime would receive the equivalent of a written warning rather than a three-day suspension. Although the change was retroactive, Deere did not initially correct Banks's disciplinary record, leaving the false impression Banks was subject to a thirty-day suspension for any further infraction.
On January 15, 2013, Loy, whom Banks accuses of repeatedly using racial epithets, called Deere's compliance hotline and complained Kofron was failing to address Banks's deficient performance and insubordination. In particular, Loy complained Kofron was not managing Banks's failure to set up the grinder and process parts properly. Loy also reported Banks called Kofron a “bitch” in front of her and told her to “shut the fuck up.”
Deere assigned Brad Thomas from the Labor Relations Department to investigate. After speaking with Banks's co-workers, Thomas concluded Kofron was not effectively managing Banks and gave Kofron some coaching. Thomas, Kofron, and a member of Deere's human resources department also met with Banks to advise him he would face consequences if he failed to improve his performance and his attitude. Banks did not receive any progressive discipline as a result of Loy's complaint.
In March 2013, Rizah Sarajlija, a manufacturing engineer in Department 524, determined the department was “running scrap”—producing parts out of compliance with Deere's manufacturing specifications. Inspection reports indicated the problem could be caused by “swarf”—grind residue consisting of fine metal shavings—getting between the grinder and the work piece. Sarajlija concluded the part defects were consistent with a grinder operator failing to blow the swarf off the grinder fixture between parts as required by Deere procedure. Although Banks assured Kofron and Sarajlija he was blowing off his grinder between parts, Deere inspectors tested twenty-four parts Banks produced and determined eight were defective.
On March 11, 2013, Kofron received a photograph from an inspector depicting Banks's grinder, allegedly after Banks had operated it.3 The picture showed excessive swarf on the grinder—far more than that left by one part. Mullen reported he found the grinder in that condition before his shift. Based on the work schedule that day, Kofron determined Banks had used the grinder on the prior shift. After seeing the photograph, Sarajlija did some testing and determined four parts Banks ran during his last shift were scrap. The part defects were consistent with excessive swarf on the grinder. Kofron and Sarajlija concluded Banks had violated company work instructions by failing to blow off the grinder between every part.
On March 20, 2013, Craig Cornwell from Deere's Labor Relations Department convened a disciplinary hearing. Cornwell reviewed the photograph and inspection reports and heard live testimony from the parties involved. Banks and his union representative, noting the picture did not indicate when it was taken, denied Banks failed to blow off his grinder between parts. Cornwell nonetheless concluded there was good and just cause to discipline Banks for failing to follow work instructions and producing scrap. Because Banks's disciplinary record did not reflect the retroactive reduction of his previous suspension to a warning, Cornwell imposed a thirty-day unpaid suspension—the next disciplinary level after what the records showed was Banks's prior two-week suspension.
Banks filed a grievance challenging his suspension. At that time, Deere discovered the error in Banks's disciplinary record and determined he only should have received a two-week suspension. Deere corrected Banks's disciplinary record and reimbursed him for the pay and benefits he would have received had he not received the thirty-day unpaid suspension. Deere maintains it simply overlooked revising Banks's disciplinary record and made a “bookkeeping” error. Banks asserts the error “was a pretext for the discrimination Banks suffered.”
On April 24, 2013, Banks filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. He received a right-to-sue letter September 4, 2013. On December 2, 2013, Banks sued Deere in Iowa state court, alleging unlawful race discrimination and harassment under federal and state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1) (unlawful employment practices); Iowa Code § 216.16 (unfair employment practices). Deere removed the action to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a), and 1446. On January 29, 2015, Deere moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted.
The district court concluded any claims Banks sought to make based on discrete acts of race discrimination that occurred before June 29, 2012, were time-barred because Banks failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(e)(1) ; Iowa Code § 216.15(13). Banks does not appeal that conclusion, limiting his discrimination claim on appeal to only the March 2013 suspension.
With respect to that claim, the district court found that Banks's discrimination claim based on the March 2013 suspension was timely and that Banks suffered an adverse employment action, but the district court concluded Banks failed to establish the requisite inference of race discrimination. The district court further decided that even if Banks had established an inference of race discrimination, he still failed to show Deere's stated reasons for imposing discipline were merely pretextual.
With respect to Banks's race-harassment claim, the district court determined Banks failed to produce any admissible evidence to support his allegations. The district court thus found “it unnecessary to determine whether the allegations, if accepted as true, would meet the strict standard required to establish a claim for hostile work environment.” Banks timely appeals.
“We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the record.” Minnesota ex rel. N. Pac. Ctr., Inc. v. BNSF Ry. Co. , 686 F.3d 567, 571 (8th Cir. 2012). Summary judgment is required “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). “ ‘Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.’ ” Torgerson v. City of Rochester , 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (quoting Ricci v. DeStefano , 557 U.S. 557, 586, 129 S.Ct. 2658, 174 L.Ed.2d 490 (2009) ).
Banks first challenges the adverse judgment on his race-discrimination claim.4 Banks has not adduced any direct evidence of discrimination, so his claim is subject to the familiar burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802–04, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Under McDonnell Douglas , Banks must establish a prima facie case of race discrimination by showing “(1) he was a member of a protected group; (2) he was qualified to perform the job; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) circumstances permit an inference of discrimination.” Xuan Huynh v. U.S. Dep't of Transp. , 794 F.3d 952, 958 (8th Cir. 2015).
If Banks establishes a prima facie case, a presumption of discrimination arises and the burden shifts to Deere to present evidence of a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for” its adverse employment action. McDonnell Douglas ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
...for summary judgment the undated, unsigned, and unsworn statements of Mr. Scott's co-workers (Dkt. No. 53, at 3-6). See Banks v. Deere , 829 F.3d 661, 668 (8th Cir. 2016) (finding unsworn and unattested statements purportedly from Banks's co-workers did not meet the standards required by Ru......
-
Garang v. Smithfield Farmland Corp.
...the circumstances of his or her employment, or adverse employment action, give rise to an inference of discrimination. Banks v. Deere , 829 F.3d 661, 666 (8th Cir. 2016) ; Young , 754 F.3d at 577 ; see also Mahn v. Jefferson Cty., Mo. , 891 F.3d 1093, 1096 (8th Cir. 2018) (establishing a pr......
-
Byer v. Wilkie
...severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment.'" Banks v. Deere, 829 F.3d 661, 666 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing Jackman, 728 F.3d at 804). "This demanding standard requires extreme conduct rather than merely rude or unpleasant co......
-
Tuohey ex rel. Wrongful Death Beneficiaries Bryant v. Chenal Healthcare, LLC
...declaration or statement must be written, signed, dated, and certified as true and correct "under penalty of perjury."Banks v. Deere, 829 F.3d 661, 668 (8th Cir. 2016). Thus, "an unsworn expert report, standing alone, does not constitute admissible evidence that can be considered at the sum......