Bailey v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 15-11799 |
| Parties | MICHELLE H. BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. OAKWOOD HEALTHCARE, INC. d/b/a OAKWOOD HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This is a workplace discrimination lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Michelle H. Bailey against Defendant Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., which employed Plaintiff as a human resources professional in 2013 and 2014. Plaintiff began working for Defendant in April 2013, went on maternity leave in December 2013, and returned in March 2014 only to be fired the same day. Plaintiff alleges that she suffered discrimination on the basis of her race, her pregnancy, and her age. She also claims that she was fired in retaliation for opposing acts of racial discrimination committed by her supervisor and her department as a whole.
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. As discussed in detail below, Plaintiff has put forward enough evidence to raise genuine issues of material fact on some of her claims at the prima facie stage, but she cannot ultimately demonstrate that the reasons proffered by Defendant for her termination were pretextual. For that reason, the Court will grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff is an African-American woman. She holds a Bachelor's Degree in Organizational Administration, as well as a Graduate Certificate in Human Resources, from Central Michigan University. (Bailey Dep. 165:18-166:2, 167:25-168:2, 168:18-169:18.) At all relevant times she was either 40 or 41 years old. (Def.'s Mot. Ex. 17 at 2, Pg ID 838; Bailey Dep. 73:22-23.)
For nearly 23 years prior to her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff worked for Beaumont Hospital ("Beaumont").1 (Bailey Dep. 91:9-11.) Plaintiff began at Beaumont as a transporter, and held a variety of positions during her tenure there until she accepted the position of "HR Administrative Special Supportand Projects" in 2011. (Bailey Dep. 90:17-20, 91:12-13, 100:23-101:5.)
Plaintiff submitted job applications to Defendant on two separate occasions while she worked for Beaumont: first for the position of Senior Compensation Professional in 2011, and then for the position of Senior Staffing Professional in 2013. (Def.'s Mot. Ex. 3, 2013 Application; Def.'s Mot. Ex. 26, 2011 Application.) Plaintiff was invited to interview based on the 2013 application, and she interviewed with human resources manager Pandora Walker, among others. .) Plaintiff testified that in at least one of the interviews, she told her interviewers that the work history dates on her application could be inaccurate, as she did not have all of the relevant records on hand when she filled it out. (Bailey Dep. 134:11-20.) Plaintiff also testified that she assumed that the background check that would be performed prior to her being hired by Defendant would catch any significant issues or discrepancies, including differences between her 2011 and 2013 applications. (Bailey Dep. 134:23-135:10.) Lastly, Plaintiff testified that no one raised an issue with her about any discrepancies between the resumes after the background check was conducted. (Bailey Dep. 181:11-14.)
Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a Senior Staffing Professional onApril 15, 2013. (Bailey Dep. 11:24-12:1; Walker Dep. 74:4-5.) The responsibilities of this position included recruitment and interviewing of prospective employees, evaluation of candidates for various positions, participation in job fairs and college recruitment efforts, and providing various forms of support to hiring managers as well as Defendant's Human Resources Director. (Def.'s Mot. Ex. 2, Senior Staffing Professional Job Description.) The group in which Plaintiff worked was responsible for approximately 5000 employees overall, within which there were, on average, 180 open positions at any given time. (Walker Dep. 78:14-81:15.)
Pandora Walker was Plaintiff's direct superior, as well as the only employee in the department besides Plaintiff who engaged in recruiting. (Walker Dep. 35:7-17; Bailey Dep. 22:1-9, 183:13-14.) Walker, in turn, reported to Director of Human Resources David Squire, and she also reported to Human Resources Administrator Sherry Huffman. (Bailey Dep. 23:19-24, 24:5-14; Walker Dep. 21:1-9, 34:11-18.) Walker is African-American. (Walker Dep. 49:5-6.)
Another employee in the department, Andrea Hale, held the position of Human Resources Representative, and worked just outside of Plaintiff's office. (Bailey Dep. 25:2-7, 69:16-18.) Hale is Caucasian, and Plaintiff testified that she was "very young" at the time relevant to this lawsuit.2 (Bailey Dep. 71:25-72:3.)Plaintiff testified that Walker "often" referred to Hale in conversations with Plaintiff as a "young whippersnapper."3 (Bailey Dep. 79:24-80:1.) In Plaintiff's words, Walker told her "several times that Andrea interviewed for my job, that she wanted my job, and that she was a potential replacement." (Bailey Dep. 70:3-11.) In her own deposition testimony, Walker denied having said that Plaintiff would be replaced by Hale, that Hale should work in a position similar to Plaintiff's, or that Plaintiff would be fired so that Hale could take her job. (Walker Dep. 368:1-21.)
Plaintiff testified that at some point during the summer of 2013, she began to make complaints to Walker regarding Walker's interacting with African-American employees differently than she did with Caucasian employees, and also regarding what Plaintiff perceived to be discriminatory hiring policies employed by the human resources department. (Bailey Dep. 12:7-17:9.)
Plaintiff and Walker met on August 15, 2013. (Walker Dep. 134:19-23, 141:14-25.) At that meeting, they discussed the performance review that been made for Plaintiff after the end of her 60-day probationary employment period.4 It was at this meeting that Plaintiff announced her pregnancy. (Bailey Dep. 73:9-17; Walker Dep. 118:2-12.) At the same meeting, Walker observed that Plaintiff had been coming in late to work, and agreed to adjust Plaintiff's start time from 8:00 AM to 8:30 AM. (Bailey Dep. 75:23-76:10, 77:6-8; Walker Dep. 121:17-24.)
Plaintiff asserts that after she announced her pregnancy, Walker began to make offensive remarks on the topic. Specifically, Plaintiff testified that Walker told her that she was too old to be having a baby, and that because of this, there would be greater risks of pregnancy complications or that her child would have Down syndrome. (Bailey Dep. 22:24-23:4.) Plaintiff further testified that on several occasions, Walker characterized Plaintiff as having "pregnancy brain" after Plaintiff made a minor mistake. (Bailey Dep. 73:9-74:20.) Plaintiff testified that she complained about these remarks to Walker directly. (Bailey Dep. 23:5-6, 74:21-25.) Plaintiff also testified that after she announced her pregnancy, herworkload began to increase substantially, though she also testified that she did not know how much her workload increased compared to that of Walker, whom she acknowledged was the only other employee in her department that was engaged in recruiting. (Bailey Dep. 18:10-16; 22:1-17.)
At some point thereafter, Walker rejected an African-American candidate that Plaintiff had submitted to her for an open dietary position because he lacked an associate's degree. Plaintiff pointed out to Walker that the position as advertised only required a degree "or equivalent experience." Walker later identified Plaintiff's recommendation of this candidate as one of Plaintiff's mistakes that was discovered when she was away on maternity leave. (Bailey Dep. 83:6-84:6.)
In September 2013, Plaintiff's start time was changed from 8:30 AM back to 8:00 AM. (Bailey Dep. 76:22-77:8.) The parties agree on this, but dispute whether it was Plaintiff's decision. (Bailey Dep. 76:19-77:5; Walker Dep. 127:9-128:12.)
Plaintiff also testified that she was denied the opportunity to work from home, while one or more other employees—including at least one Caucasian employee, as well as Walker herself—were allowed to do so. Specifically, Plaintiff testified that she called in one day and informed Walker that she would need to work at home that day because her son was sick. The next day, Walker approached Plaintiff and informed her that she should not in fact have been working from home, since defendant did not have a work-from-home policy. Plaintiff testifiedthat Walker herself "often" worked from home, and that she had heard from two other employees (including Hale) that a Human Resources representative, who was Caucasian and who worked in a different department, had been allowed to work from home "[f]or a long period" while she was pregnant. Plaintiff did not recall this employee's name. (Bailey Dep. 18:3-21:25.) Plaintiff testified that she was not aware of any policy of Defendant's that allowed employees to work from home on a regular basis. (Bailey Dep. 41:4-9.) Walker testified that employees in the Human Resources Department were not allowed to work from home, that Walker herself had used paid leave whenever she was out of the office, and that besides the incident described above involving Plaintiff's son, Plaintiff never made a request to work from home. (Walker Dep. 386:21-387:21.)
Plaintiff testified about several other incidents in which she complained to Walker about what she believed to be racially discriminatory conduct committed by Walker in her...
To continue reading
Request your trial