Douglas v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc.
Decision Date | 30 March 2006 |
Docket Number | No. CIV.A.03-30265-MAP.,CIV.A.03-30265-MAP. |
Citation | 422 F.Supp.2d 260 |
Parties | Howard T. DOUGLAS, Plaintiff, v. J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Lorna M. Hebert, Murphy, Hesse, Toomey, and Lehane, Quincy, for J.C. Penney Co., Inc., Defendant.
Kayla Carter, Owens J.C. Penney Co., Inc., Legal Department, Plano, TX, for J.C. Penney Co., Inc., Defendant.
Michael O. Shea, Law Office of Michael O. Shea, Wilbraham, for Howard T. Douglas Plaintiff.
James A. Toomey, Murphy, Hesse, Toomey, and Lehane, Quincy, for J.C. Penney Co., Inc., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Howard T. Douglas, an African-American male, has sued Defendant J.C. Penney Company, Inc. ("J.C.Penney") alleging discrimination on the basis of race and gender in violation of both federal and state law. The four-count complaint alleges that Plaintiff suffered: (1) discrimination, harassment, and a hostile work environment based on gender and sex, in violation of Title VII and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B (Count I and Count III); (2) discrimination, harassment, a hostile work environment, and retaliation based on ethnicity, race, and color, in violation of Title VII and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B (Count II and Count IV).1
Defendant has moved for summary judgment, arguing that on the undisputed facts of record, Plaintiff lacks evidence sufficient to support his claims and justify a trial.
For the reasons outlined below, Defendant's motion will be allowed.2
The facts are set forth below in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the non-moving party. The factual record is extensive and the subject of some argument by counsel.3 The following summary of the record, however, constitute& a fair summary of the evidence in sufficient detail to support the court's ruling.
Plaintiff worked for J.C. Penney for approximately nine years. He was hired in Michigan in 1993 as a management trainee and was subsequently promoted to the positions of Merchandising Manager and Senior Merchandising Manager. In 1997, Plaintiff transferred to a store in Holyoke, Massachusetts, to work as Senior Merchandising Manager for the Men's Division.
During most of his tenure with J.C. Penney, Plaintiff was a successful employee who received positive performance reviews. He was consistently described in Performance Appraisals as a "high potential" employee, that is, someone in the top five percent of J.C. Penney employees. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 32, Ex. 2, Miscellaneous Performance Appraisals.) He also consistently received high "Overall Performance Ratings" on J.C. Penney's five point scale; Plaintiff was regularly rated a "2," or "exceeds expectations." (See id.) In both 1994 and 1995, Plaintiff received sales awards, and in 1995, he was invited, "because of [his] personal success and strong `people skills,'" to become a mentor and "impart [his] `process of success' to ... trainees." (See id.)
After his transfer to the Holyoke store, Plaintiffs initial reviews were generally positive. In a Performance Appraisal for 1997, Store Manager Henry Lovan praised Plaintiff, noting that although he "has a very large assignment," he has "responded with solid plans of action." (See id.) The following year, although Lovan once again rated Plaintiff a "high potential" employee, his evaluation was slightly less favorable. Plaintiffs "Overall Performance Rating" was lowered to a "3," or "meets requirements." Lovan singled out associate development, leadership, and sense of urgency as Plaintiffs weaker areas. (See Dkt. No. 32, Ex. 1, Douglas Dep., Nov. 17, 2004, at Ex. 17 ( ); see also id. () .)
In 1999, Lovan once again gave Plaintiff a "3" for overall performance. For the first time, however, Plaintiff was not identified as a "high potential" employee. Lovan also noted that Plaintiff "needs to be able to manage his time . . . [and] improve customer satisfaction." (See Douglas Dep. Ex. 18.) However, Lovan praised Plaintiff's dedication, organization, and relationship with his staff, and gave higher marks for "Management Characteristics" than he had the previous year. (See Douglas Dep. Ex. 18.)
In the 2000 Performance Appraisal, Lovan rated Plaintiff a "4," or "not meeting minimum requirements, improvement needed." Plaintiff was warned that he had ninety days to improve his rating to a "3" or better, and informed that if his performance subsequently dropped below a satisfactory level again, his rating "could be changed to a `5' and [his] employment could be terminated." (Douglas Dep. Ex. 19.) Once again, Plaintiff was not rated a "high potential" employee. (Id.) Lovan also focused on Plaintiff's poor judgment, referring to Plaintiff's personal involvement with female associates at the store and disclosure of confidential information to a new associate. (See id. () ); id. () Lovan also noted in passing that Plaintiff's sales were down 5.5% for the year. Nonetheless, Lovan gave Plaintiff positive or satisfactory ratings for all but one of the "Management Characteristics" (See Douglas Dep. Ex. 19 ( ).)
Plaintiff does not believe that Lovan's Appraisal was in any way discriminatory. (See Douglas Dep. 142:8-16; see also id. at 107:12-108:24 ( ).) Plaintiff also concedes that Lovan's Appraisal was "accurate except for" the reference to sharing confidential information. (See Douglas Dep. 141:15-24.). However, Plaintiff believes that Lovan rated him a "4" not as a reflection of Plaintiff s job performance, but purely on the basis of his involvement with female associates. .)
A number of changes occurred in 2001. In January, J.C. Penney instituted a centralized buying procedure. Buying, which had previously been a key function of Senior Merchandising Managers, was transferred to a central office. As a result, Senior Merchandising Managers had their titles changed to Senior Department Managers ("SDM").4 This new position required a greater emphasis on presentation and customer standards. J.C. Penney also introduced new "Core Standards" that it used to evaluate, employees.
The Holyoke store also experienced changes in 2001. In March, Serena Olsen replaced Lovan as Store Manager. In addition, the Holyoke store endured construction and remodeling for most of 2001.
Olsen formally evaluated Plaintiff for the first time at the mid-point of fiscal year 2001. (See Douglas Dep. Ex. 20.) Douglas was once again rated a "4," or "improvement needed," and reminded of the possible consequences if he failed to improve. (Id.) Olsen noted that "[s]ales results continue to struggle below district average" in the Men's Division and singled out three factors—sense of urgency, leadership, and associate development—as "key attributes that are contributing to this loss." (Id.)
Plaintiff's submission in this litigation offers detailed objections to Olsen's midyear Appraisal. He contends that Olsen "lodged generalized criticism" and "failed to provide specific examples." (Pl.'s Facts ¶ 16.) Olsen criticized Plaintiff both for failing to "empower" associates and for a lack of leadership; he contends that such criticism is contradictory because when he did "empower" associates by delegating tasks, Olsen used this as evidence of his failure to lead. (See id.) Plaintiff also disputes Olsen's contention that he failed to provide adequate direction to his associates; he says that he held regular meetings with associates. (See id. (citing Douglas Dep. 142-49).)
Plaintiff and Olsen met to discuss the mid-year Appraisal in late September 2001. (See Dkt. No. 32, Ex. 8, Olsen Dep. 178:11-179:3, Nov. 18, 2004.) Plaintiff then took a series of steps to address the issues raised in the Appraisal....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fantini v. Salem State College
...at 88 ("Here, there is no dispute that the plaintiff engaged in protected activity by filing a complaint."); Douglas v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 422 F.Supp.2d 260, 279(D.Mass.2006)("By complaining ... about perceived racial discrimination with regards to her comments and the Barbie incident, ......
-
Akerson v. Penny Pritzker Sec'y Commerce
...of “three” in all categories of her October 2008 evaluation, indicating a satisfactory level of performance. Cf.Douglas v. J.C. Penney Co., 422 F.Supp.2d 260, 273 (D.Mass.2006), aff'd,474 F.3d 10 (1st Cir.2007) (although the plaintiff's performance reviews “were not without criticism, for t......
-
Rock v. Lifeline Sys. Co.
...her job was filled by a person not possessing the protected attribute'") (internal citation omitted); Douglas v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 422 F.Supp.2d 260, 273 n.8 (D.Mass. 2006) (fact that plaintiff, a male, "was replaced with a male has 'evidentiary force,' but does not defeat his prima fa......
-
Acevedo-Milán v. Home Etc. Inc.
...167 (1st Cir. 1998); Stepanischen v. Merchants Despatch Transp. Corp., 722 F.2d 922, 928 (1st Cir. 1983); Douglas v. J.C. Penny Co., Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 260, 272 (D. Mass. 2006), aff'd, 474 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2007). In this case, Defendants assume that Ms. Acevedo-Milán has established a p......