Dulaney v. Films
| Decision Date | 25 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-482-DJH-RSE |
| Parties | STELLA DULANEY et al., Plaintiffs, v. FLEX FILMS (USA), INC. et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
* * * * *
Plaintiffs Stella Dulaney, David Fowler, and Andrea Harshfield allege discrimination and wrongful termination of their employment with Defendant Flex Films (USA), Inc. in violation of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. (Docket No. 31, PageID # 1448) All three plaintiffs alleged in the complaint that they were "treated differently, harassed, and terminated because of their race and national origin as Americans" and fired in retaliation for reporting discrimination. (D.N. 1-1, PageID # 13) Dulaney and Harshfield also claimed that they were discriminated against because they are female. (Id.) Defendants now move for summary judgment as to all of Dulaney and Fowler's claims.1 (See D.N. 22; D.N. 23) Following careful consideration, including extensive review of the record and consideration of oral argument, the Court will grant Defendants' motions for summary judgment.
Flex Films—which manufactures flexible polyester packaging films—is the American subsidiary of UFLEX, a multinational corporation based in India. (D.N. 31, PageID # 1448) The headquarters and primary manufacturing and distribution facility of Flex Films are located inElizabethtown, Kentucky. (D.N. 22-1, PageID # 64) The Elizabethtown location was the first and only UFLEX manufacturing facility in the United States. (D.N. 31, PageID # 1450)
Plaintiffs allege that employees of American origin were discriminated against at Flex Films. (D.N. 1-1, PageID # 13) Plaintiffs maintain that although Flex initially hired Americans to fill its demand for workers, "employees of American . . . origin[] were treated differently and discriminated against by their Indian managers." (D.N. 31, PageID # 1451) When asked whether Indian employees on visas took jobs formerly occupied by American nationals, Steve Sargeant, General Manager of Research and Development, testified that "some of the PLC operators took jobs that used to—there used to be a lot of Americans there." (D.N. 31-1, PageID # 1485) He also testified that the supervisor for the "slitting area" at the plant used to be American, but that he was terminated and replaced with a person of Indian origin. (Id.)
Sargeant also testified that many people at Flex Films, including individuals in management and on the "shop floor," made comments that "American people don't work very hard" and that Americans "are stupid, or they don't listen." (Id., PageID # 1491) Fowler testified that he heard Anantshree "Audi" Chaturvedi—the Vice Chairman of Flex Films—tell employees that if they could not "get this plant in line, we will fire everybody and replace them with Indians." (D.N. 22-4, PageID # 208) While Sargeant recalled being part of a meeting where Chaturvedi said "something like that," he could not recall if Chaturvedi said "with Indians." (D.N. 31-1, PageID # 1485) According to Sargeant, Indian employees at Flex Films received preferential treatment over their American counterparts in several ways, including vacation time and subsidized healthcare. (Id., PageID # 1484, 1489) Sargeant testified that John Phillips, the Human Resources Manager, told him that Vijay Yadav, the Business Head of Flex Films, had a hidden agenda, that Americans were being punished at the company, and that there was a different systemfor American employees. (Id., PageID # 1453) Sargeant said that Phillips also told him that Yadav had plans to remove five American employees: Stella Dulaney, David Fowler, Andrea Harshfield, and Joe Hearne. (Id., PageID # 1482-83)
In addition to discrimination based on national origin, the plaintiffs also allege that female employees were discriminated against at Flex Films. (D.N. 1-1, PageID # 13) Dulaney testified that she was told that there were no women in management positions at UFLEX globally prior to the opening of the Elizabethtown location, and that the company only had five females in management. (D.N. 23-3, PageID # 1281) In addition to Dulaney and Harshfield, Sargeant testified that three other women complained to him about harassment at Flex Films. (D.N. 31-1, PageID # 1486-90) Although Sargeant does not believe that he specifically reported anything to do with sex, race, or national origin discrimination, he testified that he frequently spoke with Phillips about these issues and wanting to improve the culture at Flex Films. (Id., PageID # 1492)
In response, Defendants argue that Dulaney cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination; has no evidence that Flex Films' proffered reason for her termination was pretextual; and cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation. (D.N. 23-1, PageID # 303, 319) Defendants likewise argue that Fowler is unable to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or prevail on his retaliation claim. (D.N. 36, PageID # 1652-55) And further, Defendants assert that (1) Fowler has no evidence to support his assertion that Yadav had a plan to replace American employees with Indian individuals (id., PageID # 1645); (2) Fowler has not offered any evidence beyond hearsay statements to show that Flex Films' proffered reason for his termination was pretextual (id., PageID # 1654); and (3) Fowler and Dulaney cannot succeed on their hostile work environment claims (id., PageID # 1646, 1648; D.N. 37, PageID # 1659).
Chaturvedi hired Fowler for the position of Chief Marketing Officer in approximately January 2016 and was Fowler's supervisor during Fowler's tenure at Flex Films. (D.N. 22-1, PageID # 65) Despite the title, Fowler's job consisted of managing sales accounts and a team of four salespersons. (Id., PageID # 63; D.N. 22-4, PageID # 127) On May 27, 2016, Chaturvedi sent an email including two attachments to Fowler and other members of management, the second of which stated that pricing matters needed to be dealt with "internally between Business Head and Marketing Heads" and that major deviations in pricing changes were to be approved by the Vice Chairman (D.N. 22-4, PageID # 234, 241). Fowler made pricing changes on two occasions, however, increasing the rebates and reducing pricing for certain film products sold to two clients—Coveris and Bemis. (D.N. 22-1, PageID # 66) Fowler testified that he was unaware of the directive regarding pricing changes and that he did not recall seeing the attachments sent by Chaturvedi, though he was copied on the email and replied to it. (D.N. 22-4, PageID # 124-25)
In August 2016, Wayne Morris—the Chief Financial Officer of Flex Films—sent an email to Fowler regarding two increases in rebates that occurred beginning April 1, 2016, and June 9, 2016. (Id., PageID # 246) For the June 9 rebates, Fowler stated that the increase in rebates for the third quarter of 2016 was something he "worked out" with Coveris over the course of the prior week in June. (Id., PageID # 140-41) Based on his recollection, Fowler believed he had approval from Chaturvedi for this rebate and that he had discussed this increase with Yadav. (Id.) Although Morris emailed Fowler asking who had approved this increase (id., PageID # 246), Fowler testified that he was sure he and Morris had discussed the increase in rebates previously (id., PageID # 143).
On November 23, 2016, Yadav sent an email to Fowler stating that a "major anomaly" was discovered upon review of the Coveris rebate sheet, and that the increase in rebates was "NOT approved by [Chaturvedi] or [him]self." (Id., PageID # 253) On December 24, 2016, Yadav sent an email to Chaturvedi, saying that despite Fowler's assertions to the contrary, the company was "analyzing and finding several unapproved price reductions by [Fowler and] his team or in [Fowler's] accounts" and asked whether this was a "[d]isturbing pattern." (Id., PageID # 252) The email ended with a projected total revenue loss of $223,000 attributed to Fowler's price reductions from May 2016 to November 2016. (Id.)
On January 3, 2017, Yadav emailed Chaturvedi saying that Fowler had offered price reductions to another client, Bemis, "with NO consent from myself (or you)." (Id., PageID # 262) Yadav told Chaturvedi that this was "becoming a pattern with [Fowler] and his team" as it already "happened/[is] happening with Coveris." (Id.) The next day, Morris emailed Fowler, Chaturvedi, and Yadav, saying that Fowler's submitted rebate calculation "included an increase even though Finance was told no changes would be made," and that Finance was waiting for Fowler to show that the increase was approved by Chaturvedi or Yadav. (Id., PageID # 260) On January 9, 2017, Chaturvedi emailed Fowler, saying that there was "a price reduction to these rebates that you are denying and no one seems to have approved." (Id., PageID # 286) Chaturvedi then removed Fowler from the Bemis and Coveris accounts and reassigned them to another team. (Id., PageID # 172-73) Notably, Fowler has never contended that his removal from these accounts was influenced by his race or nationality. (D.N. 22-4, PageID # 175)
The members of Fowler's sales team were assigned monthly sales goals. (Id., PageID # 127) The team's performance relative to their assigned sales goals was tracked bymanagement, and Fowler received monthly feedback regarding his performance and the performance of the members of his team. (Id., PageID # 128-29) Fowler testified that he did not have individual sales goals per month and was not responsible for making any sales on his own because he was not assigned any accounts. (Id., PageID # 128, 185-86) Fowler admitted, however, that he had the authority to assign himself accounts, and that he was assigned monthly sales goals that he failed to meet. (Id., PageID # 185-87)
On March 2, 2017, Chaturvedi sent an email to Fowler telling him that his failure to...
To continue reading
Request your trial