Brown v. Oakland Cnty.
| Decision Date | 04 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14-cv-13159 |
| Parties | MARCELLA BROWN, Plaintiff, v. OAKLAND COUNTY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [28], AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION SEEKING A SANCTION OF ADVERSE INFERENCE BASED ON DEFENDANT'S SPOLIATION OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION [31]
On April 22, 2015, Marcella Brown ("Plaintiff") filed a Second Amended Complaint against her former employer, Oakland County ("Defendant"). See Dkt. No. 23. In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff raises seven counts alleging that Defendant wrongfully discriminated and retaliated against her on the basis of her age, race, and participation in a protected activity—namely, filing a worker's compensation claim. Id. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that her rights have been violated pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981") (Count I); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991 ("Title VII"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Count II); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (Count III); the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act ("ELCRA"), MICH. COMP. LAWS § 37.2102 et seq. (Counts IV, V and VII); and the Workers Disability Compensation Act ("WDCA"), MICH. COMP. LAWS § 418.301 et seq. (Count VI). Id
Presently before the Court are Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [28] and Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions [31]. Both motions are fully briefed, and a hearing was held onSeptember 2, 2015. After listening to the argument of the parties, reviewing the briefs, and reviewing the record, the Court will GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [28] and DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions [31]. The Court's Opinion and Order is set forth in detail below.
Plaintiff is a Mexican-American woman who began working for Defendant in December of 2008. In September of 2013, Plaintiff began working for the Family Division of the Oakland County Circuit Court. Plaintiff held a provisional appointment in the Family Division where she worked as a Full Time Office Assistant I and was subject to a six-month probationary period before she would be officially employed with Defendant. She was assigned to work at the Office of the Friend of the Court ("FOC").
According to Defendant, Plaintiff was unable to successfully complete her probationary period and her provisional appointment to the position of Office Assistant I was terminated on February 7, 2014 for "Failure to Complete Probationary Period." Suzanne Hollyer, the appointed Friend of the Court, filled out Plaintiff's probationary end report and also met with Plaintiff to inform her of her termination. Hollyer states she became aware of issues regarding Plaintiff's work performance one day before Plaintiff was terminated—February 6, 2014. There were three stated issues regarding Plaintiff's work performance that had been brought to Hollyer's attention, and allegedly led to the termination.
The first issue related to a customer who came into the FOC looking to obtain a print-out of her account. Plaintiff advised the customer that she would have to pay for the print-out. The customer became upset and Plaintiff called Deputy Friend of the Court Pete Dever for assistance. Dever provided the woman with a print-out free of charge. According to Defendant, the wayPlaintiff reacted to Dever's response to the situation was a problem because interviews with staff purportedly revealed that Plaintiff was upset that Dever undermined her. Defendant claims that this, as opposed to the headache Plaintiff claimed to have, was the real cause of Plaintiff's early departure as Plaintiff purportedly told her co-workers that she may not return. The second issue involved a situation where a FOC Referee sent someone to the front desk for help with modification of an order. Plaintiff allegedly acted in an inappropriate manner by emailing Dever directly for assistance as opposed to following the proper chain of command by contacting her immediate supervisor.
Defendant maintains that the "main catalyst" in Hollyer's decision to terminate Plaintiff stemmed from her interviews with Plaintiff's co-workers relating to Plaintiff's behavior in the workplace. According to Defendant, Plaintiff's co-workers described her as threatening, hostile, and confrontational in nature. Defendant states Hollyer relied on interviews taken from Rebecca Rudolph, Susan Jasmund, Kelly Morelli, and Kelly Castillo. Defendant contends that all of these individuals said Plaintiff's behavior was viewed as aggressive and hostile.
For example, Defendant cites testimony from Rudolph where Rudolph explained that Plaintiff was always crying at work. Defendant also cites Rudolph's testimony about the account printout situation, as Rudolph claims that Plaintiff had posted on her Facebook account that she felt undermined at work. Rudolph claims she witnessed Plaintiff "crying hysterically over the situation." Rudolph described Plaintiff's behavior in the workplace as "overemotional" and claimed that Plaintiff would give everybody a hard time. Defendant also emphasizes Rudolph's testimony where Rudolph stated that she was having bad anxiety issues and was arguing with others "over having to work with [Plaintiff]." Rudolph purportedly reported her concerns to her direct supervisor, Julie Izzo, shortly before Plaintiff was terminated.
Based on the information Izzo learned from Rudolph regarding the customer issue with the account printout, Izzo interviewed Jasmund, Morelli, and Castillo. Izzo claims these employees had the same concerns as Rudolph. Izzo reported this information to her supervisor, Pam Sala and relayed the concerns to Hollyer. Sala, Izzo and Hollyer all purportedly met to discuss their concerns. Izzo claims she did not recommend Plaintiff be failed on probation. Instead, Defendant emphasizes it was Hollyer who made the final decision. After evaluating the situation, Hollyer testified that she terminated Plaintiff's employment because of Plaintiff's behavior, inability to handle supervision, and inability to work well with her co-workers.
Plaintiff describes a different set of factual circumstances that led to her termination. For example, just prior to her termination, on January 29, 2014, Plaintiff explains that Izzo scored Plaintiff as "Outstanding or Above Average" in all categories of a Performance Appraisal. This outstanding rating included cooperation with fellow employees and cooperation with supervision. Notwithstanding this evaluation, Plaintiff notes she was terminated nine days later.
Plaintiff claims that her race and age were reasons for her termination. To support her claim, Plaintiff explains how her younger and non-Latino co-workers were treated differently. For example, Plaintiff explained a situation where Izzo told her that her co-worker, Tiffani Preston—an African-American twenty-three years old hired on the same day as Plaintiff—was going to work with the county a lot longer than Plaintiff because Preston was younger. Plaintiff states that Dever told Preston, Plaintiff states that she found this statement offensive and discriminatory. Plaintiff states that Izzo learned that Plaintiff had complained about this comment and felt unfairly treated. Plaintiff contends that Izzo immediately contacted Hollyer to report Plaintiff's age discrimination claims and to orchestrate Plaintiff's termination.
Plaintiff also contends that Izzo was upset about a worker's compensation claim that Plaintiff filed after she fell in the parking lot. Plaintiff asserts that a few days after the fall, Julie Sweik, Defendant's Risk Management Claims Analyst, told Plaintiff that she was entitled to worker's compensation. When Plaintiff told Izzo, Izzo allegedly became irate and yelled, Later, after Sweik told Izzo to correct Plaintiff's time sheets to reflect time off work related to the injury, Izzo apparently complained, "this is a real pain in the a**." Plaintiff asserts that Izzo was so irate about her worker's compensation claim that Izzo refused to process it appropriately. This allegedly led Defendant's claims processor to inform Sweik that the claim had still not been reported fifteen days after the incident.
Plaintiff also claims Izzo also would not authorize Plaintiff's time at the doctor, and Plaintiff had to seek assistance from Sweik. Two days before Plaintiff's termination, Rudolph purportedly told Izzo about Plaintiff's Facebook post complaining about the mishandling of her worker's compensation claim. The day before her termination, Izzo informed Hollyer about Plaintiff's complaint that her worker's compensation claim had been mishandled. Additionally, Dever—who allegedly once referred to Plaintiff as "our own little Mexican"—told Plaintiff's husband, "your wife is probably going to sue us for her fall in the parking lot."
Thus, Plaintiff argues that her attitude had nothing to do with her termination. Plaintiff contends the proffered explanations are merely a pretext. Plaintiff explains that when she left work early after the printout issue she left because "I was working by myself, my hand was throbbing, I had a migraine, it was all of those things[.]" Plaintiff maintains that the office policy was that anyone could leave if they were not feeling well and that she received permission to leave. With respect to the email issue, Plaintiff indicates that her co-worker informed her to sendthe email, she was not aware of a chain of command, no one ever indicated that there was a chain of command policy, and no one could identify a...
To continue reading
Request your trial