East v. Abarta Coca-Cola Beverages, LLC
| Decision Date | 04 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:20-cv-02643 |
| Parties | BRIAN EAST, Plaintiff, v. ABARTA COCA-COLA BEVERAGES, LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Plaintiff Brian East (Plaintiff) commenced this action in the Cuyahoga Comity Court of Common Pleas against Defendant Abarta Coca-Cola Beverages, LLC (Defendant) asserting one cause of action: race discrimination in violation of Ohio Revised Code (O.R.C.) § 4412. (R. 1-1). On November 24, 2020, Defendant removed this action to federal court alleging the complaint contains federal claims. (R. 1, PageID# 2). On December 1, 2020 Defendant filed its Answer. (R. 4). On February 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint alleging the following causes of action: (1) race discrimination hi violation of Title VII; and (2) race discrimination in violation of O.R.C. § 4112. (R. 9). On March 23, 2021, Defendant filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint. (R. 11). On April 1, 2021, Plaintiffs counsel withdrew from representation (R. 12), and Plaintiff is now proceeding pro se. On April 14, 2021, this matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to "hear and decide all pretrial matters not dispositive of any party's claim or defense .. .[and, ] to handle all pretrial matters, including the preparation of a report and recommendation on any dispositive motions.” On June 1, 2021, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (R. 15). During a telephone conference on June 2, 2021, Plaintiff indicated his desire to continue with the present action. It was explained to him that he had thirty days to file a response to the motion for summary judgment. (R. 16). As of this date, Plaintiff has not filed any response or moved for an extension of time to do so. For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that the motion for summary judgment (R. 15) be GRANTED.
Plaintiff was hired in 1995 by the Cleveland Coca-Cola Bottling Company, LLC (“Cleveland Coca-Cola”) as a general laborer, an hourly union position, and paid in accordance with the pay scale set forth in the collective bargaining agreement. (R. 14-1, East Depo. at 12-14, 29, 35-36). Plaintiff was promoted to a syrup mixer in 1998 and received a pay increase per the union pay scale. (R. 14-1, East Depo. at 36, 85-86; Exh. C, PageID# 160).
Plaintiff was promoted to the position of a “Lab Tech” or “quality assurance technician” in July of 2007, a non-union position with an annual salary of $40, 700. (R. 14-1, East Depo. at 36; Exh. D, PageID# 161). Five months later, Plaintiff received a merit increase and his salary became $42, 500. (R. 14-1, Exh. E, PageID# 162). In this position, Plaintiff conducted laboratory testing, including water systems tests, torque testing, carbonation checks, and seam checks, and served as a backup syrup mixer. (R. 14, East Depo. at 90-93). East did not supervise anyone in this role, and was himself supervised by Ken Solomon. (R. 14-1, East Depo. at 93).
On February 2, 2015, Plaintiff was promoted to the position of a Quality Assurance Supervisor with an annual salary of $52, 515. (R. 14-1, East Depo. at 37, 99; Exh. F, PageID# 163). Plaintiff testified that both he and Jason Wypasek reported to Ken Solomon, and he did not consider Wypasek his immediate supervisor. (R. 14, East Depo. at 100-101). By contrast, the payroll change notice indicates that Wypasek was indeed Plaintiff's immediate supervisor. (R. 14-1, Exh. F, PageID# 163). Plaintiff continued as a quality assurance supervisor until April of 2017. (R. 14-1, East Depo. at 37).
Before the sale of Cleveland Coca-Cola to Defendant ABARTA, the Cleveland facility ceased production operations in 2017, and Plaintiff became a night shift loading supervisor. . As a night loading supervisor, Plaintiff was responsible for a team of approximately 20 to 25 employees and reported to warehouse manager Gary Wasil. (R. 14-1, East Depo. at 123; R. 15-2, Evans Decl. ¶8).[2] In Plaintiff's 2017 performance evaluation, Wasil rated him as “Below Expectations” in several categories, including prioritizing and organization, quality of work, and resourcefulness. (R. 14-1, East Depo. at 122; Exh. I, PageID# 167-168). Plaintiff met with Wasil and Todd Evans, Defendant's Human Resources Manager, to discuss his 2017 performance review. (ECF No. # 14, Ex. 1 at 114; R. 15-2, Evans Decl. ¶9). Wasil thought Plaintiff was “too wishy-washy with his subordinates, not firm enough, and created conflict amongst subordinates because he was lenient with some and firm with others.” (R. 15-2, Evans Decl. ¶9). Plaintiff testified that he was told he only received a one-percent raise due to his poor performance evaluation. (R. 14-1, East Depo. at 114, 125; R. 15-2, Evans Decl. ¶10).
Defendant is a sales, manufacturing, service and distribution company headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania whose product lines include soft-drinks, juices, energy drinks, waters, enhanced waters and iced teas. (R. 15-2, Exh. 1; Decl. of Evans at ¶4). on January 27, 2018, Defendant acquired the Cleveland Coca-Cola bottling facility, where Plaintiff was employed. (R. 15-2, Exh. 1; Decl. of Evans at ¶5).
In April of 2018, production operations resumed at the Cleveland production plant. (R. 15-2, Evans Decl. ¶12). Plaintiff was transferred back to the production department where he resumed his quality assurance role in the laboratory, and received the newly created job classification title of warehouse supervisor. (R. 14-1, East Depo. at 123; R. 15-2, Evans Decl. ¶12). His salary remained unchanged. Id. According to Evans, “warehouse supervisor” is a generic title used by Defendant and is not indicative of a specific role. (R. 15-2, Evans Decl. ¶13). Plaintiff resumed many of his former production job duties. (R. 14-1, East Depo. at 53-56, 90-91).
When Plaintiff returned to the production department in April 2018, the Quality Assurance Technician position was eliminated. (R. 14-1, East Depo. at 41; R. 15-2, Evans Decl. ¶14). According to Evans, no other employees reported directly to Plaintiff at this time. (R. 15-2, Evans Decl. ¶14). Plaintiff acknowledged that he did not evaluate any employees “on paper, ” but asserted that six employees reported directly to him. (R. 14-1, East Depo. at 41-42). Plaintiff testified that he reported to Robert Ruppe, the production manager, but stated that he was the supervisor in charge of the production department. (R. 14-1, East Depo. at 44-45). In his declaration, Evans states that Plaintiff was permitted to give production associates direction, but that all employees, including Plaintiff, reported directly to Ruppe. (R. 15-2, Evans Decl. ¶17).
Ruppe conducted Plaintiff's performance evaluations for 2018 and 2019. (R. 14-1, East Depo. at 137; Exhs. J & K, PageID# 169-175). In 2018, Plaintiff was rated as “meets expectations” in all categories. (R. 14-1, Exh. J, PageID# 169-171). In 2019, Plaintiff was rated as “below expectations” in several categories, including corporate efficiency, prioritizing and organization, and resourcefulness. (R. 14-1, Ex. 1 at 137-139; Exh. K, PageID# 172-175). Plaintiff, however, received three pay increases while a warehouse supervisor, before filing his lawsuit, resulting in a salary at the time of this lawsuit of $61, 530. (R. 15-2, Evans Decl. ¶18).
Four of Defendant's employees hold the title of warehouse supervisor-“Three Warehouse Supervisors are Black, and one is Caucasian.” Id. at ¶19. According to Evans, the responsibilities and qualifications of each warehouse supervisor vary significantly, and the salaries range from $48, 500 to $77, 200 based on factors such as experience, job duties and responsibilities, and performance. Id. at ¶20. Plaintiff is the only warehouse supervisor in a quality assurance role working in the laboratory and overseeing the production line. Id. at ¶21.
During Plaintiff's deposition, he identified Wypasek as a comparable employee who Defendant allegedly treated more favorably-the only Caucasian employee holding the title of warehouse supervisor. (R. 14-1, East Depo. at 149, 166; R. 15-2, Evans Decl. ¶19).
Part of Plaintiff's race discrimination claim is based on his alleged exclusion from workplace meetings. (R. 14-1, East Depo. at 10). According to Evans, Distribution Center Managers (“DCMs”) conduct regular planning meetings at Defendant's various distribution centers. (R. 15-2, Evans Decl. ¶26). Since 2018, the Cleveland facility has had three DCMs. Id. Defendant's current DCM in Cleveland, Tom Stroh, was appointed in November of 2020. Id.
Stroh conducts three regular planning meetings: a Sales and Inventory Update;[3] a weekly forecasting telephonic conference, [4] and Daily Operations Meetings (i.e., “Cadence Meetings”). (R. 15-2, Evans Decl. ¶27). Evans states that Plaintiff is invited to meetings that pertain to his job function. Id. Stroh expanded the cadence meetings to include all production staff, and “[a]ll operations supervisors, including East, are invited to attend the daily Cadence Meetings.” (R. 15-2, Evans Decl. ¶30). Plaintiff stated that he was not invited to Cadence Meetings until after he filed charges. (R. 14-1, East Depo. at 68-69). Plaintiff acknowledged in his deposition that he had no knowledge “what Wypasek or other Caucasian supervisors or what meetings they go to.” (R. 14-1, East Depo. at 163).
Part of Plaintiff's race discrimination claim is based...
To continue reading
Request your trial