Dorris v. It's Greek to Me, Inc.

• Decision Date: 14 June 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:19-cv-02445-TC
• Parties: NAOMI DORRIS, Plaintiff v. IT'S GREEK TO ME, INC., d/b/a GTM Sportswear, Defendant
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Kansas

NAOMI DORRIS, Plaintiff v. IT'S GREEK TO ME, INC., d/b/a GTM Sportswear, Defendant

Case No. 2:19-cv-02445-TC

United States District Court for the District of Kansas

June 14, 2021

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Naomi Dorris filed this action against her former employer, It's Greek to Me (d/b/a GTM Sportswear), alleging GTM terminated her employment in violation of state and federal law. Doc. 60. GTM moved for summary judgment on all claims. Doc. 61. For the following reasons, GTM's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

I

A

Summary judgment is proper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the moving party demonstrates "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is "material" when it is essential to the claim's resolution. Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998). And disputes over those material facts are "genuine" if the competing evidence would permit a reasonable jury to decide the issue in either party's favor. Id. Disputes—even hotly contested ones—over facts that are not essential to the claims are irrelevant. Indeed, belaboring such disputes undermines the efficiency Rule 56 seeks to promote.

At the summary judgment stage, material facts "must be identified by reference to affidavits, deposition transcripts, or specific exhibits incorporated therein." Adler, 144 F.3d at 671; see also D. Kan. R. 56.1(d). To determine whether a genuine issue of fact exists, the Court views all evidence, and draws all reasonable inferences, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Allen v. Muskogee, Okl., 119 F.3d 837, 839-40 (10th Cir. 1997). That said, the nonmoving party cannot create a genuine factual dispute by making allegations that are purely conclusory, Adler, 144 F.3d at 671-72, 674, or unsupported by the record as a whole, see Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378-81 (2007).

The moving party bears the initial burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Hicks v. City of Watonga, Okl., 942 F.2d 737, 743 (10th Cir. 1991). Once the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to demonstrate that genuine issues remain for trial as to those dispositive matters. Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990); see Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986); Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir. 1991).

B

This is an employment discrimination case. In short, Dorris contends that GTM's termination of her employment violated state and federal rights.

GTM is Kansas corporation that does business in Manhattan, Kansas. Doc. 60 at § 2(a)(ii). GTM portrays itself as a national provider of custom school and sports apparel who employs "Customer Experience Representatives" to interact with customers and potential customers about their concerns and orders over the phone. Doc. 65 at 1-2.¹ Dorris, who is African American, began working as a Customer Experience Representative for Defendant on August 27, 2018. Doc. 60 at §§ 2(a)(vi), (vii), and (viii).

While employed, Dorris had three supervisors: Patty Dewitt (Customer Experience Supervisor), Abigail Wahl (Customer Experience Team Lead), and Amber Siscoe (Customer Experience Supervisor). Doc. 65 at 42-43, ¶¶ 12, 14, 16. All three supervisors reported to Jennifer Glodowski, the head of the Customer Experience and Sales Department. Id. at 43, ¶ 24. Jessica Thomas was the Human Resources ("HR") Business Partner, and Casey Butler was Vice President of HR. Id. at 43, ¶¶ 19, 21.

GTM terminated Dorris on February 7, 2019, less than six months after she was hired. Doc. 60 at § 2(a)(xxi). Dorris asserts that her termination was illegal.

1. Dorris's brief tenure with GTM was marked by several difficulties, which give rise to the present case.

a. GTM alleges, and Dorris acknowledges, that Dorris repeatedly failed to meet GTM's expectations vis-à-vis showing up for work and interacting with customers. First, on January 16, 2019, Dorris did not appear for her scheduled 7 a.m. shift and had failed to notify her supervisor she would be out. Doc. 60 at § 2(a)(xix); Doc. 65 at 55, ¶¶ 88-91. Dorris's supervisors, Wahl and Siscoe, delivered a Written Warning for the incident, which was approved by Glodowski, the department head. Doc. 60 at § 2(a)(x); Doc. 65 at 15, ¶ 44. The warning stated that "[Dorris] needs to notify her supervisor when she will be out of the office." Doc. 61-5 at 109.

Second, Glodowski received notice that a customer complained about a call with Dorris on January 30, 2019. Doc. 65 at 17, ¶¶ 50-51. Glodowski reviewed a recording of the call with Butler, VP of HR, and determined that Dorris's behavior warranted a Final Warning for failing to follow GTM's Customer Service Expectations. Id. at 17, ¶¶ 51-52; Doc. 61-6 at ¶ 13. Glodowski, without objection from Butler, issued Dorris that Final Warning on February 1, 2019. Doc. 60 at § 2(a)(xi); Doc. 65 at 17, ¶ 52; Doc. 61-6 at ¶ 14. The Warning provided examples of Dorris's deviation from the policy: "Placing customers on hold, gathering payment information, first call resolution, professionalism on the phones, and lack of basic customer service skills." Doc. 65 at 59, ¶ 115; Doc. 65-26.

Finally, on February 7, 2019, Dorris arrived to work at 7:41 a.m., 41 minutes after her shift was scheduled to start. Doc. 60 at § 2(a)(xix). She did not text or call her supervisors to let them know she wouldarrive late. Id. at § 2(a)(xx). Wahl notified Glodowski that Dorris had come in late without calling or texting. Doc. 65 at 27, ¶ 75. Glodowski reviewed the information Wahl provided and issued a Separation Notice for "Failure to Follow Procedures" and commented that "[Dorris] was 41 minutes late for her shift . . . [and] did not notify her manager or use the company call in line to notify [Defendant] she was going to be late." Id.; Doc. 65-36. Thomas, the HR representative, and Butler, Thomas's supervisor, reviewed the notice, and Butler approved it. Doc. 65 at 27-28, ¶¶ 75-76. Dorris was terminated later that day. Doc. 60 at § 2(a)(xxi).

b. While Dorris does not dispute these facts, she claims that her record was not all bad. Dorris also notes that she did not enjoy a supportive relationship with her immediate supervisors, Dewitt, Wahl, and Siscoe.

Regarding her performance, Dorris notes that she was recognized for a commendation within the company. In January 2019, Dorris received a "ShoutOut" award (which "thanks employees for going above and beyond the call of duty") for helping a customer place an order. Doc. 65 at 41, ¶ 6 & 79 n.3; Doc. 65-2 (awarding her movie tickets). She also regularly appeared in the top Customer Experience Representatives' "Call & Chat Stats," which her supervisors sent daily to rank Dorris and her peers based on customer interaction. Doc. 65 at 41, ¶¶ 7-8; Doc. 65-3.

And, with regard to her immediate supervisors, she paints a picture of internal office dynamics that were, at best, churlish and unprofessional. Moreover, Dorris argues their conduct exhibited racially motivated, differential treatment. Doc. 65 at 27, ¶ 75; 30, ¶ 86; 34, ¶ 98; 83-87.

Dorris generally points to three categories of evidence to support her belief. The first category consists of comments Dorris describes as a request that she make her voice "more peppy, chipper, upbeat"—i.e., more like "young, white women" such as Wahl and Siscoe. Doc. 65 at 19-20, ¶ 57, 83; Doc. 65-1 at ¶¶ 13, 61, 83; Doc. 65-27. That message was relayed in the February 1, 2019, meeting where Wahl, Siscoe, and Dewitt delivered the Final Warning to Dorris. Doc. 65 at 19, ¶ 55. During that meeting, Wahl and Siscoe replayed the customer call and, according to them, "explained to [Dorris] that the way she had presented herself to the customer was not appropriate or professional." Id. at 19, ¶ 56. Dorris believed her supervisors thought she was"monotone" and unfriendly on customer calls. Id. at 31-32, ¶¶ 88, 91. Dorris told Wahl and Siscoe they were picking on her and felt that she was graded poorly because she did not sound like a young, white female. Id. at 19-20, ¶ 57; see also Doc. 65-26. She believes neither considered that she is black and has a different "tone and tenor of voice" than what they wanted her to use. Doc. 65 at 29, ¶ 83; 61, ¶ 124.

Wahl and Siscoe wrote up their recollection of the meeting with Dorris and sent it to Thomas, along with a copy of the Final Warning. Doc. 65 at 21, ¶ 59; 25, ¶ 66; see Doc. 65-27. In response, Thomas asked Wahl, Siscoe, and Dewitt for "a summary of [Dorris's] response" and "exactly what [Dorris] said in regards to how she felt i.e.) [sic] we are discriminating against her because of the way she talks." Doc. 65 at 21, ¶ 60. According to Wahl and Siscoe, Dorris stated "that [they] were critiquing her for the way that she talks, saying that she does not talk like 'us', she talks how she wants to talk and she has her own personality" and then continued to "mock parts of the call in '[their] voice.'" Id. at 19-20, ¶ 57; 22, ¶ 61; see Doc. 65-27. Thomas asked, "So to be clear Naomi didn't mention anything really about discriminating against her? It was more picking on her and she talks differently than us?" Doc. 65 at 21, ¶ 60; 63, ¶ 137; see Doc. 65-29. Wahl replied, "Correct, she did not specifically state it, or use the term 'discrimination,'" and added that Dorris had said "she is not like [them] and does not speak like [them]" and that "[they] were wanting her to speak like [them] and she isn't going to do that because she is not like [them]." Doc. 65 at 63, ¶ 138; Doc. 65-29. Thomas did not conduct any further investigation or ask Dorris about the February 1 meeting. Doc. 65 at 65, ¶ 139.

Dorris believed Wahl, Siscoe, and...