Allen v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
| Citation | 22 F.Supp.3d 722 |
| Decision Date | 15 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 13–10263. |
| Parties | C. Michael ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. WALMART STORES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
C. Michael ALLEN, Plaintiff
v.
WALMART STORES, INC., Defendant.
Case No. 13–10263.
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.
Signed May 15, 2014.
Mary A. Mahoney, Schwartz Law Firm, Farmington Hills, MI, for Plaintiff.
Elisa J. Lintemuth, Dykema, Grand Rapids, MI, Kiffi Y. Ford, Dykema Gossett, Lansing, MI, for Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. # 17)
SEAN F. COX, District Judge.
This is an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff C. Michael Allen (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant Wal–Mart Stores, East LP (incorrectly referred to as Walmart Stores, Inc.) (“Defendant” or “Wal–Mart”) violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)1 by failing and/or refusing to restore him to his position of store manager following his return from an FMLA-protected leave. Defendant
maintains that Plaintiff voluntarily resigned from his position prior to going on FMLA leave.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. # 17). The motion has been fully briefed by the parties, and the Court heard oral argument on the motion on April 17, 2014. For the reasons set forth below, this Court shall GRANT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff C. Michael Allen (“Plaintiff”) began his employment at Wal–Mart in May 2007. (Pl. Dep. Attached to Def. Br. at Ex 1, pp. 19, 39). He was initially hired to fill the position of a developmental store manager. (Pl. Dep. at 19). On July 21, 2008, Plaintiff officially accepted the position of store manager of the Commerce Township Wal–Mart. (Pl. Dep. at pp. 24, 38). As store manager, Plaintiff was responsible for ensuring the store's financial success, fostering community relations, supervising and managing hourly and salaried members of management, maintaining store cleanliness, etc. (Pl. Dep. at pp. 39–40).
Plaintiff directly reported to the Wal–Mart market manager who is responsible for the geographic area encompassing the Commerce Township store. (Pl. Dep. at pp. 22, 46). Until 2010, Michael Collischan (“Collischan”) was Plaintiff's market manager supervisor.
As a store manager, Plaintiff received yearly performance reviews. On Plaintiff's first performance evaluation dated April 4, 2008 (Pl.'s Resp. at Ex. E), Collischan wrote that, overall, Plaintiff was a “Solid Performer,” although there were areas of his performance that were rated “Development Needed.” (Pl. Resp. at Ex. E).
On Plaintiff's second performance evaluation dated April 1, 2009, Collischan again noted that, overall, Plaintiff was a “Solid Performer” although there were still areas where development was needed. (Pl. Resp. at Ex. G).
On April 2, 2009, Plaintiff was placed on a “Performance Improvement Plan” (“PIP”). (Pl. Dep. p. 69). Although the parties do not give much detail about what a PIP entails, a PIP appears to be an agreement between the employee and Wal–Mart whereby performance areas needing improvement are highlighted and discussed, and plans to improve in those areas are laid out.
In September 2009, Collischan issued Plaintiff a written warning because Plaintiff failed to show adequate progress on his PIP. (Pl. Dep. at pp. 71–72; Pl. Resp. Ex. I). Plaintiff admitted that the store had, in fact, continued to operate below Wal–Mart's standards. (Pl. Dep. at pp. 77, 79).
In early 2010, William Bartell (“Bartell”) replaced Collischan as the market manager and Plaintiff's supervisor. (Pl. Dep. At 79). Collischan, however, still completed Plaintiff's April 16, 2010 performance review. In the April 2010 performance review, Collischan rated Plaintiff's overall performance as “Development Needed.” (Pl. Resp. at Ex. J).
In September 2010, Bartell placed Plaintiff on a second PIP because of continued housekeeping issues, and Plaintiff's failure to hold lower management accountable. (Pl. Dep. at pp. 99–100; Pl. Resp. at Ex. K).
On October 13, 2010, Bartell and Cynthia Ewing (“Ewing”), the market human resource manager, issued a verbal coaching to Plaintiff because he was not showing improvement on the items listed in the September 2010 PIP. (Pl. Dep. at pp. 103–
05; Pl. Resp. at Ex. L). Plaintiff continued to struggle with meeting the requirements of the PIP, and with the demands of the store manager position in general, due to personal stressors related to his family. (Pl. Dep. at 101). During his verbal coaching, Plaintiff claims that Bartell and Ewing told Plaintiff that he should “consider [his] family, consider looking at other opportunities.” (Pl. Dep. at p. 115).
On October 18, 2010, Plaintiff sent his supervisor, Bartell, an e-mail, in which Plaintiff stated the following:
Over the weekend, I have been reflecting on my position as the store manager of 2618. After much consideration, I feel that it would benefit me and the company if I considered taking another position within the company.
The past few weeks have been particularly difficult in my personal life. My wife lost a pregnancy after many years of attempting to have a second child. The stresses caused by this and the challenges of running the store have been very trying on me and my family.
In moving to another position, I feel that it would provide opportunities to step into another role that would help me to further learn and develop my skills to benefit Walmart [sic] in the future. Many new positions that I might move to would provide me opportunities to address the family concerns that I have.
My first choice in my career development would be to pursue the track leading to a MHRM position. I feel that my background in the stores, as well as my competencies are well suited for this type of position. I know that there are not currently positions available, but would like your help and development to move into that direction. In the meantime, I feel that stepping into another role in store operations such as shift manger [sic] would help to continue my development and provide me the necessary time to devote to my family.
I hope that you will consider my request for reassignment.
(Plaintiff's E–Mail to Bartell, attached to Def. Br. at Ex. 3; see also Pl. Dep. at pp. 109–11) (emphasis added).
The parties dispute whether or not Plaintiff and Bartell specifically discussed his reassignment in the days after Plaintiff sent Bartell the e-mail. (Compare Bartell Aff., ¶¶ 8, 9, attached to Def. Br. at Ex. 2 and Pl. Dep. at pp. 113–14). However, Plaintiff admits that he spoke with Bartell regarding the e-mail about a week after Plaintiff sent it. (Pl. Dep. at p. 115). Plaintiff further testified that he asked Bartell “what was going on,” and Bartell “said he didn't know, he sent up a note, and he would get back with me.” (Pl. Dep. at 115). It is undisputed that on November 2, 2010, Bartell forwarded Plaintiff's e-mail to his supervisor, Regional Human Resources Manager Danielle Bank. (Banks Aff. ¶ 4, attached to Def. Br. at Ex. 4).
On November 4, 2010, Plaintiff applied to take FMLA leave. (Pl. Dep. at 120). Plaintiff was released to return to work on January 25, 2011. (Pl. Dep. at pp. 119–120, 122–23). Plaintiff testified that, when he returned to work, he specifically asked to be put back into his original position as store manager. (Pl. Dep. at 128). Plaintiff claims that Bartell responded that Wal–Mart was accepting his request to step down as store manager and that the only position available to him was the assistant manager position at the Hartland, Michigan store. (Pl. Dep. at 127).
Plaintiff admits that he accepted the assistant manager position, but claims that it left him with “no other choice other than to terminate his employment.” (Pl. Dep. at 141; Pl. Ctr. Stmt. of Facts at ¶ 34). Plaintiff testified that the assistant manager
position paid approximately $55,000 less than the store manager position. (Pl. Dep. at 139). Plaintiff resigned from his position as assistant manager of the Hartland, Michigan Wal–Mart store in April 2011. (Pl. Dep. at 145).
Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. on January 22, 2013 (Doc. # 1) alleging that Wal–Mart violated the FMLA by failing to reinstate him to his store manager position when he returned from FMLA leave. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant retaliated against him for exercising his rights under the FMLA. On January 27, 2014, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 17). Plaintiff timely responded, (Doc. # 19), and Defendant timely replied. (Doc. # 21).
STANDARD OF DECISION
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that...
To continue reading
Request your trial