Benitez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:18-cv-00491 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
| Parties | ASBIEL BENITEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC., Defendant. |
Pending before the Court are two motions filed by Defendant. Defendant has filed a Motion to Sever Plaintiffs' Claims or in the Alternative, Motion for Separate Trials (Doc. No 33, “Motion to Sever”). Plaintiffs have responded. (Doc. No. 36).[1] Defendant has replied. (Doc. No 44, “Reply”).
Also pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 51, “Motion”), and a memorandum in support thereof (Doc. No. 52). Plaintiffs filed a short response in opposition (Doc. No. 58), a response in opposition to Defendant's statement of material facts (Doc. No. 73, “Response to Statement of Facts, ”) and a memorandum in support thereof (Doc. No. 74 “Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion”). Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. No. 81). Both motions are ripe for review.
For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendant's Motion. The Court will deny Defendant's Motion to Sever as moot.
BACKGROUND[2]
There are five Plaintiffs in this matter: Asbiel Benitez, Youssef Wahid, Abdulqader Omar, [3]Arnobio Gomez, and Labinot Kolshi. The Court will first discuss facts relevant to all Plaintiffs, before discussing the facts relevant to each Plaintiff individually.
A. Facts relevant to all or multiple Plaintiffs
1. Plaintiffs' jobs and the Goodlettsville plant
Each Plaintiff held a production management position at the Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. (“Tyson”) plant in Goodlettsville, Tennessee (“the Goodlettsville plant”), where the facility consists of three separate departments: Ground Beef, Beef, and Pork. (Doc. No. 73 at ¶ 15). Each department runs multiple production lines, which process different kinds of meat. (Doc. No. 52 at 7).
The highest-ranking employee at the Goodlettsville plant is the Plant Manager. (Id.). The Plant Manager is responsible for the entire facility, including safety, surveillance of operations, performance, plant goals, profitability, accounting, warehouse operations, and the plant's appearance. (Id.). The second-highest ranking employee is the Operations Manager. (Id.). The Operations Manager reports to the Plant Manager and is responsible for the production and quality of both the A shift and B shift. (Id.). The Assistant Operations Manager oversees solely B shift operations and reports to the Operations Manager. (Id.). Each department at the plant is run by a General, who oversees either the A or B shift. (Id.). Thus, for example, there is an A shift Pork General and a B shift Pork General. Generals working on the A shift report to the Operations Manager, and Generals working on the B shift report to the Assistant Operations Manager. (Id.). Below each General are several Supervisors who are responsible for specific production lines in each department. (Id. at 7-8).
2. Defendant's relevant employees that are not party to this suit
Doug Griffin, who was born in 1959, was promoted on November 17, 2014 from Operations Manager at the Goodlettsville plant to Plant Manager at Defendant's plant in Council Bluffs, Iowa. (Doc. No. 73 at ¶¶ 1, 2). Then, on August 16, 2016, Griffin was promoted from that position to Plant Manager at the Goodlettsville plant (the plant relevant to this suit). (Id. at ¶ 2). Many of Plaintiffs' claims revolve around mistreatment they allegedly received from Griffin while he served as the Plant Manager at the Goodlettsville plant.[4] There are two relevant human-resources employees who worked for Defendant. Gary Denton was the Complex Human Resources Manager at the Goodlettsville plant for 14 years before being promoted to Human Resources Director over Defendant's poultry division. (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 12). He later transitioned to be Human Resources Director over Defendant's “case ready facilities, ” including the Goodlettsville plant. (Id. at ¶ 13). Denton was born in 1963. (Id. at ¶ 21). Crystal Dyer was employed as the Goodlettsville plant's Complex Human Resource Manager from January 2015 to September 2017. (Id. at ¶ 14).
A few other employees of Defendant are relevant to multiple Plaintiffs' claims. Derrick Ausbrooks resigned from the Goodlettsville plant but subsequently was rehired as either a supervisor in the Beef department or Beef General (B shift) in May 2017 (Id. at ¶¶ 3, 4). (The parties dispute which position he was rehired for). Ausbrooks is white and American-born. (Id.). Steve Grant was hired as Operations Manager at the Goodlettsville plant after Plaintiff Kolshi's resignation. (Id. at ¶ 5). Grant had previously worked in a corporate position assisting various plants. (Id. at ¶ 6). Grant was demoted and transferred to Tyson's Sherman, Texas plant in June 2018. (Id. at ¶ 7).
The Court will now turn to the facts as they relate to each Plaintiff individually.
B. Facts relevant to Plaintiff Benitez Plaintiff Benitez's race is either Latino or Hispanic, [5] and his country of origin is Cuba. (Doc. No. 52 at 51; Doc. No. 74 at 36; Doc. No. 8 at 2).[6] Plaintiff Benitez was hired as an hourly employee by Defendant in 2008, and he was promoted to Ground Beef General (B shift) in 2015. (Doc. No. 73 at ¶¶ 252-54).
Plaintiff Benitez then applied for the position of Pork General (A shift) in June 2016, which he was awarded. (Id. at ¶¶ 255-56). After receiving the promotion but before beginning the new position, he was transferred to the position of Ground Beef General (A shift) before he could begin working in his new position as Pork General (A Shift). (Id. at ¶ 256). Defendant moved Plaintiff Benitez's position in order to realign all of its A-Shift Generals (not just Plaintiff Benitez) to maximize their strengths before Griffin became the new Plant Manager. (Id. at ¶¶ 257, 258, 260).
Over the course of his employment, Plaintiff Benitez faced several disciplinary actions (none of which Plaintiff Benitez claims were discriminatory), but he specifically claims that an action taken on April 17, 2017 was discriminatory. (Id. at ¶ 261). That day, Plaintiff Benitez was issued a counseling statement for producing 13, 000 pounds of ground beef without applying a preservative spray. (Id. at ¶ 262).
In a separate action that Plaintiff Benitez contends was discriminatory, in June 2017, Defendant demoted Plaintiff Benitez from Ground Beef General to Supervisor when metal was found in a product on one of the lines Plaintiff Benitez managed. (Id. at ¶ 265). The parties dispute whether Grant gave Benitez detailed instructions as to how to clean the affected machine in accordance with company policies (including to “remove all product from the ground beef machine, place a hold tag on the product, tear down the equipment, and completely rinse it to remove any residual metal pieces”), or whether Grant instructed Benitez to “do a wash out” of only the final grinder, with the other instructions being merely implied.[7] (Id. at ¶ 267). After Plaintiff Benitez cleaned the grinder of the machine (without completing the other steps), production was ramped back up and within a few minutes, the machine “hit metal” again. (Doc. No. 73 at ¶ 268). Plaintiff Benitez told Grant that he had followed Grant's instructions and rinsed the equipment. (Id. at ¶ 269). Grant reviewed video footage and believed that Plaintiff Benitez had not thoroughly washed the equipment. (Id. at ¶ 270). Defendant found this incident to be egregious enough that Plaintiff Benitez could have been terminated, but Defendant decided instead to suspend him and allow him to operate a new line. (Id. at ¶¶ 271-273).
Plaintiff Benitez believes his demotion was not only discriminatory, but also retaliatory because he made a complaint regarding Griffin's conduct to Senior Vice President Ray McGaugh when McGaugh visited the Goodlettsville plant. (Id. at ¶¶ 275). There are several factual disputes about Plaintiff Benitez's conversation with McGaugh. McGaugh testified that his visit to the Goodlettsville plant occurred after Plaintiff Benitez's demotion, but Plaintiff Benitez and Grant each testified that Plaintiff Benitez met with McGaugh before he was demoted. (Id. at ¶ 276). Defendant contends that Griffin had no knowledge that Plaintiff Benitez had complained to McGaugh about Griffin's conduct, but Plaintiff Benitez testified that Griffin knew about the complaint because he walked in on the conversation between Plaintiff Benitez and McGaugh. (Id. at ¶ 277). Additionally, McGaugh denies meeting with Plaintiff Benitez at all. (Doc. No. 74 at 34).[8]
After this meeting, according to Plaintiff Benitez, Grant retaliated against him with his tone, approach, and method of trying to help Plaintiff Benitez. (Doc. No. 73 at ¶ 279). Plaintiff Benitez testified that Griffin retaliated against him by watching his work more closely, telling him to get back to the floor when he was in his office, and asking hourly workers about Plaintiff Benitez's work as supervisor. (Id. at ¶ 280). Plaintiff Benitez also points to increasing discipline and threats of discipline as additional alleged retaliatory behavior by Griffin. (Id.). Plaintiff Benitez also testified that Griffin spread rumors that Plaintiff Benitez was having an affair with a team member, then mentioned the alleged affair in a conversation with Plaintiff Benitez while also noting that Plaintiff Benitez's wife worked at the plant. (Id.).
In February 2018, Plaintiff Benitez was issued a written warning for failing to perform a mandatory label verification to confirm that a product had the correct label. (Id. at ¶ 282). Subsequently, a customer received the incorrectly-labeled product, and the Goodlettsville plant...
To continue reading
Request your trial