Corpus v. Aim Leasing Co.
| Decision Date | 24 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 3:19 CV 2250 |
| Parties | RUDY CORPUS, Plaintiff, v. AIM LEASING COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Pending before the Court are Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 36), Motion to Strike Plaintiff's December 30, 2020 Declaration (Doc. 45), and Supplemental Motion to Strike Opposition to Motion to Strike Plaintiff's December 30, 2020 Declaration and Motion for Sanctions (Doc 49). These matters are fully briefed and ripe for decision. For the following reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment grants its Motion to Strike, and denies its Supplemental Motion to Strike Opposition to Motion to Strike Plaintiff's December 30, 2020 Declaration and Motion for Sanctions.
Plaintiff brings four claims against Defendant: (1) a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) interference claim, (2) an FMLA retaliation claim, (3) a retaliation claim under Ohio law and (4) a national origin discrimination claim under Ohio law. See Doc. 1.
Plaintiff started working for Defendant in October 2013. (Corpus Dep Doc. 37-1, at 3940) He worked as a business development specialist, selling asset management solutions and leasing commercial trucks in northwest Ohio. Id. at 110-11; Doc. 36-4, at 1-2. From April 2017 until Plaintiff's termination in December 2018, Plaintiff reported to Joe Telega, and Telega reported to Matt Svancara. (Telega Dep., Doc. 37-3, at 9); (Svancara Dep., Doc. 38, at 18). Plaintiff was Defendant's only Mexican American salesperson. (Doc. 40).
Plaintiff's 2013 sales scorecard showed he exceeded his $300, 000 sales goal by generating $533, 065 in revenue. (Doc. 39-5, at 4). In November 2014, Plaintiff received a three percent raise. (Svancara Dep., Doc. 38, at 65). Plaintiff's 2015 performance review showed Plaintiff exceeded his $500, 000 sales goal by generating $742, 059 of revenue. (Doc. 39-6, at 1). In February 2016, Plaintiff received a 7.875 percent raise. (Svancara Dep., Doc. 38, at 65). Plaintiff did not meet his sales goal in 2016, generating $430, 801 against an annual goal of $500, 000. (Doc. 39-7, at 4). But in January 2017, Plaintiff received a 2.5 percent raise. (Svancara Dep., Doc. 38, at 66).
In late 2015, Plaintiff witnessed one of Defendant's managers directing racial and sexist slurs at another Aim employee. (Corpus Dep., Doc. 37-1, at 174). Plaintiff confronted the manager after these comments (Corpus Dep., Doc. 37-1, at 185-86), and spoke to a member of Defendant's Human Resources (“HR”) staff regarding the same on December 11, 2015 (Doc. 36-35, at 1).[1]
In December 2017, Plaintiff notified Carli Kuntze, Defendant's HR Manager, that he needed to take leave for a health condition. (Corpus Dep., Doc. 37-1, at 191). Kuntze provided Plaintiff with FMLA leave paperwork. (Doc. 36-12, at 3). Plaintiff never returned the paperwork. (Kuntze Decl., Doc. 36-3, at ¶ 6); (Corpus Dep., Doc. 37-1, at 192-93). Plaintiff missed a total of ten workdays, using two sick days, six vacation days, and two unpaid days off. (Doc. 36-13, at 1).
In February 2018, Plaintiff became ill again; from the hospital, Plaintiff requested information for FMLA leave from Defendant. (Doc. 36-38, at 1). Plaintiff received FMLA leave from February 1, 2018 (Doc. 36-16, at 1) through May 7, 2018 (Doc. 36-25, at 1). As Plaintiff's FMLA leave began, Telega contacted him to obtain information about any pending proposals, and to retrieve customer contact information. (Telega Dep., Doc. 37-3, at 41-42). Plaintiff's testimony confirms this exchange occurred, and he also testified Telega pried into his health issues at this time. (Corpus Dep., Doc. 37-1, at 270, 342-44).
Defendant typically performs employee performance reviews in February, so in 2018 Plaintiff did not receive a review because he was on FMLA leave. (Telega Dep., Doc. 37-3, at 3536). He did not receive a pay raise. Performance reviews are not required by company policy. Id. The majority of employees received annual performance reviews. (Svancara Dep., Doc. 38, at 28). But Telega testified Plaintiff would not have gotten a raise in 2018 even if his performance was reviewed, because “he didn't meet and exceed the requirements from the goals we set in place across the board.” (Telega Dep., Doc. 37-3, at 34).
Defendant's written policy leaves salary raises within its discretion. (Doc. 36-11, at 2). Other sales staff received performance reviews in 2018, with some receiving raises. Tom Ristvey generated $302, 000 in revenue against a $400, 000 sales goal in 2018, and received no raise in 2019. (Doc. 41-2, at 2, 4). Jordan Morran, in his first six months on the job starting in June 2017, generated no revenue but met his call notes/contacts goal, and received a three percent raise in August 2018. (Telega Dep., Doc. 37-3, at 111-112; Doc. 41-1, at 5). In 2017, Brian Peisker sold $470, 591 against a sales quota of $600, 000, and received a two percent raise in January 2018. (Doc. 41-5, at 2-3).
In late April 2018, as his FMLA leave was almost exhausted, Plaintiff and Defendant worked out a solution to accommodate Plaintiff's remaining restriction, namely his inability to drive. (Doc. 36-23, at 1). Specifically, Plaintiff would work in the shop Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and from home Tuesday and Thursday. Id. Kuntze told Plaintiff he needed to be in the shop “to assist Justin and to make sales calls.” Id. Telega and Svancara also assisted Plaintiff if he needed to meet with customers in person; Plaintiff's uncle also drove him when necessary. (Corpus Dep., Doc. 37-1, at 236-37). Plaintiff testified Telega told him he did not expect him to obtain new customers. Id. at 103-14.
After several months back on the job, Svancara and Telega became concerned with Plaintiff's complete lack of revenue generation. (Svancara Decl., Doc. 36-2, at ¶ 14). They scheduled a “sales blitz” in June 2018 to assist Plaintiff's sales efforts. Id.; Corpus Dep., Doc. 371, at 244-45. Plaintiff told Telega he “should have about 3 or 4 proposals next week alone” from the blitz (Doc. 36-28, at 1), but ultimately did not secure any new business (Corpus Dep., Doc. 371, at 246).
Defendant issued a “verbal documented warning” in late August 2018 for absenteeism. (Doc. 36-30, at 1). Kuntze wrote in an email that Plaintiff missed the prior week of work and had exhausted any available source of leave. Id. Plaintiff disputes the correctness of his discipline, arguing he worked from his hospital bed that week. (Corpus Dep., Doc. 37-1, at 260).
By early December 2018, Svancara concluded Plaintiff was not performing his duties. (Svancara Decl., Doc. 36-2, at ¶¶ 19-20). Plaintiff had not generated any revenue and had prepared only fourteen proposals compared to his goal of 72 for 2018. Id. at ¶ 19; Doc. 36-33, at 1-2. Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment on December 12, 2018. (Doc. 36-34, at 1).
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact” and “the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). When considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court must draw all inferences from the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The Court is not permitted to weigh the evidence or determine the truth of any matter in dispute; rather, the Court determines only whether the case contains sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). The moving party bears the burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). This burden “may be discharged by ‘showing'-that is, pointing out to the district court-that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.” Id.
Defendant moves for summary judgment on all four counts of Plaintiff's Complaint. See Doc. 36-1. Plaintiff identifies three adverse employment actions by Defendant - its decision not to award him a raise in February 2018, issuing a warning for absenteeism in August 2018, and its decision to terminate his employment in December 2018. Plaintiff argues those actions interfered with his FMLA rights, were retaliation for using FMLA leave, are discriminatory based on his national origin, and are retaliation for his involvement in an inappropriate workplace conduct investigation. See Doc. 1, at ¶¶ 23, 28, 37, 46. Defendant argues its decision not to give Plaintiff a raise, and its warning for absenteeism, are not significant enough to be adverse employment actions. (Doc. 36-1, at 12-13). It further argues it terminated Plaintiff's employment solely because of his poor performance, not for any unlawful reason.
Along with the above-mentioned three adverse employment actions Plaintiff also argues in his opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment that Telega repeatedly called him while on leave asking him to work, which also interfered with his FMLA rights. (Doc. 39, at 17). Defendant argues that, because Plaintiff used all his leave benefits, this action cannot have interfered with his FMLA rights. (Doc. 36-1, at 10-11).
To establish Defendant interfered with his FMLA rights Plaintiff must show “(1) he was an eligible employee; (2) Defendant was an employer subject to the FMLA; (3) he was entitled to leave under the FMLA; (4) he gave his employer notice of his intention to take FMLA leave; and (5) Defendant denied him FMLA benefits to which he was entitled.” Romans v. Michigan Dep't of Human Servs., 668...
To continue reading
Request your trial