Ang v. Procter & Gamble Co.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-3925,90-3925 |
| Citation | 932 F.2d 540 |
| Parties | 55 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1666, 56 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,732 Ignatius G. ANG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Paul H. Tobias (argued), Tobias & Kraus, Ellen L. Nagel, Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.
Kathleen K. Bedree, Harold Freeman (argued), Dinsmore & Shohl, Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant-appellee.
Before KENNEDY and RYAN, Circuit Judges, and FEIKENS, District Judge. *
Ignatius Ang appeals the dismissal of his complaint alleging race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981; national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2; and retaliatory dismissal in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-3. The following issues are before the court on appeal:
1. Whether the district court erred in dismissing Ang's race discrimination claim brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981;
2. Whether the district court erred in dismissing Ang's retaliatory discharge claim brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-3; 3. Whether the district court erred in refusing to hear Ang's claim of race discrimination under Title VII;
4. Whether the district court erred in not allowing testimony regarding disparate treatment; and
5. Whether the district court erred in granting Procter & Gamble's motion for involuntary dismissal?
We believe the district court correctly determined these matters and we shall, therefore, affirm.
Ignatius Ang, Ph.D., is a United States citizen born in Indonesia of Chinese ancestry. He was employed by Procter & Gamble from 1973 until September 15, 1987. During his tenure with P & G, Ang worked for P & G's German subsidiary (1973-75), its Cincinnati headquarters' Management Systems Division (MSD) (1975-80), its Modesta, California manufacturing plant (1980-83), and Cincinnati's Integrated Packaging System (IPS), a part of MSD (1984-87).
During his assignment to IPS, Ang worked under technical director Ron Yates and was directly supervised by Mike Menner. In May 1984, Menner submitted the following evaluation of Ang:
[Ang] continues to demonstrate a need for improved communication skills, both verbal and written forms. Additionally, he has had some difficulty in utilizing appropriate influence styles, probably stemming from a lack of self-confidence and the existing cultural differences.
[Ang] has a very real tendency to underestimate his strengths, as well as a demonstrated inability to recognize his limitations and to proactively identify means for improving those limitations. The basis for this difficulty is obviously rooted in a real lack of self-confidence in his own skills and inabilities. This lack of self-confidence has also impacted his ability to effectively influence others.
Primarily due to the difference in cultures, some characteristics that have become expected for others in MSD may never be evident in [Ang]. For example; MSD generally considers assertiveness in an individual to be one of the key success ingredients, yet, because of his cultural norms, [Ang] may never possess this characteristic. Those who manage [him] must be capable of recognizing these cultural differences, help him to accept and adjust where possible, and when change is not possible, then the manager must develop more reasonable expectations.
After reviewing the evaluation, Ang wrote that it was
In 1985, Ang was rated as among the lowest 15% of MSD employees. Ang complained to Yates that his work evaluations were inaccurate and his ranking undeserved. Ang demanded an apology from his Modesta, California manager for the low ranking given him there; promotion from a level three senior systems analyst to level four; an immediate pay increase of twenty to thirty per cent; and installation as an IPS project manager. After meeting on February 8 with Frank Caccamo, his second line supervisor, Ang withdrew his requests for a pay increase and promotion.
Two weeks later on February 22, Ang met with Caccamo, Menner, and others to discuss his role in IPS and his MSD ratings and rankings. Ang's supervisors indicated that his low rankings were partly attributable to his difficulty understanding oral communication. As a result of this meeting, Ang was offered and accepted a future role in the IPS project. The agreement was jeopardized, however, when, on March 11, after viewing a videotape of a speech by Yates in which Yates failed to name Ang as a member of IPS' technical team, Ang vowed never to work for Yates. Menner suggested that Yates failed to mention Ang, and another future member of the IPS team, because their roles in IPS were undetermined at the time of the speech. Ang immediately agreed to drop the matter but told Menner the next day that Yates' omission constituted another example of discrimination against him.
On March 13, Caccamo and Robert Dixon, who replaced Menner as Ang's supervisor, told Ang that he had three options: work with Yates on IPS; work with Dixon to find an appropriate role outside of IPS; or work with an outplacement counselor to obtain work outside of P & G. After consulting with an outplacement counseling firm, Ang informed P & G that he would remain with IPS. P & G named him leader of IPS Visual Output on the understanding that the issues raised in the previous two months were considered resolved and would not be reopened.
From May 1985 to early 1987, no further problems arose. In 1986 Yates wrote the following evaluation:
Due to [Ang's] cultural background [his] style of exerting leadership is to work quietly behind the scenes, which can be particularly effective with strong-willed individuals. However, this leadership style may take more time, may not be successful and is not viewed as positive in the MSD culture as a more proactive influence style. [Ang] must take more risk and exert influence in a more direct fashion, risking conflict and in the process learning how to manage conflict better. I know this is difficult for him, but is a skill he will gain comfort with from practice.
The evaluation also noted that Ang's performance had improved steadily over the past twelve months and that he "has demonstrated increased self confidence, increased productivity, a very positive attitude and increased organizational awareness." His January 1987 evaluation also commented on improved performance and extraordinary technical talent.
In 1987, Ang began complaining that he had not received sufficient credit for his early IPS work.
Ang began to send messages through the Deming Conference, a computer-networked, electronic mail service for employees to share successful applications of techniques learned during P & G training seminars conducted by Professor Edwards W. Deming. After Ang sent his first message in June 1987, another employee complained to Earl Conway, who had organized the Conference, that Ang's message was long and irrelevant. Conway sent a message to the Conference restating its objectives. When Ang sent another long message to the Conference, Conway met with him to remind him of the Conference's purpose and the need for concise messages. Ang's messages stated that Professor Deming rejected all rankings and ratings. Conway tried to clarify that Deming criticized only infrequent or incorrect evaluations, but Ang continued to send frequent, long messages restating his position on ratings and rankings. Conway informed Ang in June 1987 that Conference participants were complaining about his messages and offered to assist him in writing future messages. Despite the offer of assistance, Ang entered thirty-three messages into the Deming conference during July 1987, one quarter of all the messages sent that month. Conway noted that Ang seemed to spend inordinate time on the Conference which was intended for use as an "extra-curricular" activity, not a regular work assignment.
On July 17, 1987, Ang divulged information on the Deming Conference concerning his IPS project responsibilities at a time when non-P & G employees may have had access to the Conference. Because P & G considered this information confidential and competitively sensitive, Yates asked Ang not to share such information with the Conference again. Ang immediately sent a message stating that his boss had prohibited him from discussing IPS and that he believed Yates was wrong to do so.
On July 22, 1987, Ang informed Yates that he would not do "3-D" work which he had originally agreed to perform. Yates asked Ang to cancel 3-D training at Stanford University which was no longer necessary. Ang originally agreed to cancel the training but later had second thoughts. He told Yates to cancel the training if he was so anxious for the cancellation. Ang cancelled the training a week after Yates' request.
During his weekly meetings with Yates during the summer of 1987, Ang twice swore and shouted so loudly that Yates was required to shut his office door. Upon review of Ang's meeting agenda on August 5, Yates became convinced that Ang was not devoting sufficient time to current assignments. Seven of Ang's ten agenda items dealt with personal issues and the other three with completed ministerial tasks.
On August 6, Ang confronted Yates and demanded an explanation of his exclusion from the Ph.D team, which consisted of Ph.Ds and non-Ph.Ds who review the credentials of P & G's Ph.D recruits.
At his weekly meeting on August 12, Yates informed Ang that he would be terminated if his time-consuming and unprofessional conduct continued. Ang spent several hours the next day composing an electronic mail memorandum summarizing his problems with Yates. Yates...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Godfrey v. State
..., 245 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2001) ; Duggins v. Steak ‘N Shake, Inc. , 195 F.3d 828, 832–33 (6th Cir. 1999) ; Ang v. Procter & Gamble Co. , 932 F.2d 540, 546–47 (6th Cir. 1991).C. Questions of Admissibility of Evidence on Discrimination Claim.1. Introduction. The defendants claim that Godfrey ......
-
Damron v. Yellow Freight System, Inc.
...Damron must show that he was performing his job at a level that met Yellow Freight's legitimate expectations. Ang v. Procter & Gamble Co., 932 F.2d 540, 548 (6th Cir.1991); McDonald v. Union Camp Corp., 898 F.2d 1155, 1160 (6th Cir.1990). Yellow Freight had an objectively reasonable, legiti......
-
Fluellen v. US DEPT. OF JUSTICE DRUG ENF. ADMIN.
...favorably to the pleader." Id. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Ang v. Procter & Gamble Co., 932 F.2d 540, 544 (6th Cir.1991). "Dismissals of complaints filed under the civil rights statutes are scrutinized with special care." Mercado v. Kingsley......
-
Runnebaum v. NationsBank of Maryland, N.A.
...could not prove that she satisfied her employer's legitimate expectations because her work was substandard); Ang v. Procter & Gamble Co., 932 F.2d 540, 548-49 (6th Cir.1991) (ruling that failure to perform reasonable tasks at an employer's demand constitutes not satisfying legitimate employ......
-
Related State Torts
...by or with the assistance of an attorney, the courts hold the plaintiff to an even higher standard. See Ang v. Procter & Gamble Co. , 932 F.2d 540, 546 (6th Cir. 1991) (“Liberal construction is not necessary where the claimant is aided by counsel in preparing [her] charge.”). As a precautio......