Broadway v. Fed. Express
| Decision Date | 06 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:10-cv-02898-JPM-tmp,2:10-cv-02898-JPM-tmp |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
| Parties | GERTRUDE ANITA BROADWAY, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS, Defendant. |
Before the Court is Defendant Federal Express Corporation's ("FedEx") Motion for Summary Judgment, filed December 13, 2011. (ECF No. 27.) For the reasons stated below, FedEx's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
This is an action for race discrimination and retaliation brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
On December 15, 2010, Plaintiff Gertrude Anita Broadway ("Broadway") filed a Complaint "to redress acts of discrimination due to race or color." (Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1.) Chief Judge McCalla was assigned. (ECF No. 2.) On April 8, 2011, Defendant Federal Express filed an Answer. (ECF No. 6.)
On December 13, 2011, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 27.) On January 16-17, 2012,Plaintiff filed her Response. (ECF Nos. 35-39.) On January 30, 2012, Defendant filed its Reply. (ECF No. 42.)
Judge Tarnow was added as presiding judge on February 22, 2012, and Chief Judge McCalla was no longer assigned. (ECF No. 47.) On March 1, 2012, a video status conference was held. (ECF No. 49.) Judge Tarnow held a video motion hearing on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on April 18, 2012. (ECF No. 52.) The Court ordered the parties to "prepare a 3-4 page case summary and to engage in mediation/settlement negotiations." (Id.) Plaintiff was also ordered to resubmit her Response. (Id.) On May 2, 2012, Plaintiff refiled her Response. (ECF Nos. 58, 59.)
Also on May 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to include a failure-to-promote claim. (ECF No. 61 (); see also ECF Nos. 60, 62-63, 65.)
On May 3, 2013, Defendant moved to strike Plaintiff's revised Response (ECF Nos. 58, 59, 63) to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 27). (ECF No. 64.)
On May 9, 2012, the parties filed a Joint Request for Referral to Magistrate Judge for Settlement Conference (ECF No. 66), which the Court granted on May 11, 2012 (ECF No. 67).
On May 16, 2012, Defendant filed its Response in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. (ECF No. 69.)
On May 21, 2012, the status conference set before the Magistrate was cancelled (ECF No. 74) and a status conference with Judge Tarnow was held, discussing settlement possibilities (ECF No. 75).
On September 27, 2012, Judge Tarnow entered an Order administratively terminating Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice. (ECF No. 77.) On September 28, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion for Clarification or, in the Alternative, for Reinstatement (ECF No. 79), which the Court granted on October 10, 2012 (ECF No. 80).
On November 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 82) without leave of Court, which Defendant moved to strike on November 30, 2012 (ECF No. 83). On December 4, 2012, Defendant filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 84.) On December 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Withdraw Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 85.) Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw "move[d] that the Court allow her to withdraw the Amended Complaint . . . filed on November 20, 2012, and substitute Plaintiff's Proposed Amended Complaint that was attached to the Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint [(ECF No. 60)]." (Id.)
Nearly a year later on November 12, 2013, the Court filed an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (ECF No. 86.) The Court found that (ECF No. 86.)
On November 20, 2013 and November 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed responses to the Court's order. (ECF No. 87-88.) Counsel for Plaintiff noted that "counsel was diagnosed in December, 2012 with lung cancer and has received chemotherapy treatments for same." (ECF No. 87 ¶ 2.)
On March 28, 2014, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 85) the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 82) and "direct[ing Plaintiff] to file the amended complaint for which she received leave of court." (ECF No. 89 at 1.) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was administratively terminated without prejudice (Id.)
On May 13, 2014, Judge McCalla was added as presiding judge. (ECF No. 90.) On July 3, 2014, the Court set a telephonic status conference for July 10, 2014. (ECF No. 91.) After discussion with the parties, the Court determined that any further attempts to amend the Complaint to add Plaintiff's failure-to-promote claim had been waived. (ECF No. 94.) TheCourt therefore held that the instant action would proceed under the original Complaint filed (ECF No. 1). (ECF No. 94.) The Court further directed the clerk to reinstate Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 27) and set deadlines for supplemental briefing on that motion. (ECF No. 94.) Defendant filed a supplemental brief in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on July 31, 2014. (ECF No. 97.) Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief in response on August 14, 2014 (ECF No. 98), and Defendant filed a supplemental reply on August 21, 2014 (ECF No. 99).
The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise indicated.
The Plaintiff, Gertude Anita Broadway, is an African American female who resides in Memphis, Tennessee. (Compl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 1.) In 2006, Broadway worked for FedEx as a Project Engineer Specialist under Operations Manager Manoocher Hakimi. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 4, ECF No. 27-2.) At that time, Hakimi reported directly to FedEx Managing Director Sean Healy. (Id.) On February 23, 2006, Hakimi issued Plaintiff a performance review, rating her performance at 1.7 on a 4-point scale. (Id.) Broadway believed the score was unjustified, and therefore filed a complaint using FedEx's internal "Guaranteed Fair Treatment" ("GFT") procedure. (Id.)Plaintiff's complaint requested that the performance score be removed or changed. (Id.)
On March 10, 2006, Broadway met with Healy regarding her GFT complaint. (Id. ¶ 5; see Broadway Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 36-1.) During the meeting, Plaintiff told Healy that she wanted to be moved to a different manager. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 7, ECF No. 27-2.) The parties contest much of what occurred during that meeting. According to Defendant, Healy "told [Broadway] that he had found evidence that Plaintiff had significant performance problems . . . ." (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 6, ECF No. 27-2.) Further, Defendant contends that "Healy did not believe it appropriate to move Plaintiff at that point because there had not been an opportunity for Plaintiff's performance problems to be properly addressed by Hakimi through FedEx's performance improvement procedure." (Id. ¶ 7.) In contrast, Plaintiff asserts that "[i]n the meeting with Healy on March 10, 2006, he did not identify any performance problems [she] had." (Broadway Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 36-1.)
As a result of Broadway's GFT complaint, her performance rating of 1.7 was ordered to be removed from her record. Her request to be moved to a different manager was denied.(Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 7, ECF No. 27-2.)
In March or April of 2006, Plaintiff filed a second GFT complaint with FedEx. The second GFT complaint was converted into an internal EEO ("IEEO") complaint by FedEx. Part of the content of that complaint is contested. (Id.) Broadway has submitted the complaint as part of the record. (Pl.'s Resp. Opp'n Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 18, ECF No. 36-24.) In that complaint, Plaintiff writes, (Id. at PageID 515.) Plaintiff then goes on to describe a number of incidents involving Hakimi that she alleges are discriminatory. (Id. at PageID 515-18.) Although Broadway asserts that she "named Healy" in the complaint in addition to Hakimi, she only lists Hakimi in response to the prompt, "Please explain why you feel you have been discriminated against or harassed, and by whom." (Id. at PageID 517-18.)
Pursuant to Plaintiff's request, Healy was not involved in investigating her IEEO complaint. (Def.'s Statement ofUndisputed Material Facts ¶ 9, ECF No. 27-2.) On May 22, 2006, Managing Director Mike Macyauski issued an investigative report concluding that no policy violations had been found. (Id.) Broadway was notified of the result and that the inquiry had been closed in late May or early June of 2006. (Id.)
During the summer of 2006, Plaintiff was assigned to work under a different manager. Plaintiff worked under the new manager, William "Trip" Jones, through April 2009. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 11, ECF No. 27-2.) Plaintiff filed no complaints against Jones "and does not claim to have experienced any unfair treatment by Jones." (Id.)
In March of 2008, Healy was...
To continue reading
Request your trial