Ellison v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 11-5070 |
| Parties | ERNEST E. ELLISON AND THERESA SIMMONS-ELLISON PLAINTIFFS v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. DEFENDANT |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
Before the Court are Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s ("Walmart") Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 17), Brief in Support (Doc. 18) and Statement of Undisputed Facts (Doc. 19) and Plaintiffs' Response (Doc. 22), Supplements (Docs. 23-24) and Statement of Facts (Doc. 25). Plaintiff Theresa Simmons-Ellison (hereinafter "Simmons") alleges sex discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-123-101 et seq. Plaintiff Ernest E. Ellison (hereinafter "Ellison") alleges retaliation under the same statutes. For reasons stated herein, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 17) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Walmart") has three Optical Labs which manufacture lenses for eyeglasses andassemble the lenses into frames which are sold in Walmart's Vision Centers located in its stores. The U.S. labs are located in Fayetteville, Arkansas; Dallas, Texas; and Crawfordsville, Indiana. There is one so called "Call Center" for all three labs and it is located in the same facility as the Fayetteville Optical Lab. The Call Center handles calls from all the Vision Centers and from customers of the Vision Centers. Although they are housed in the same facility, the employees of the Optical Lab and the Call Center have different reporting structures. (Docs. 19 & 25, ¶ 1).
Plaintiff Eugene Ellison ("Ellison") worked for Walmart as the Call Center Manager for the Walmart Optical Labs. Ellison became the Call Center Manager sometime in June of 2004. (Docs. 19 & 25, ¶ 2). Beginning in 2009, Ellison's manager was David Finley, Senior Manager of Quality Assurance for Optical. Finley's title was later changed to Senior Manager of Quality Assurance for non-store operations. Finley reported to Volker Heimeshoff, Division Manager, Health & Wellness Non-Store operations. (Docs. 19 & 25, ¶ 3).
Plaintiff Theresa Simmons-Ellison ("Simmons") worked for Walmart since 2001, and held the position of Training Manager in the Sanger, Texas Distribution Facility. On February 8, 2010, she became the Human Resource Office Manager ("HROM") for the Fayetteville Optical Lab. Although the position had existedwithin Walmart for several years, Simmons was the first person to hold the HROM position at the Optical Lab, and a written job description for this position was not created until after her dismissal. (Docs. 19 & 25, ¶ 4, 6). Simmons reported to Human Resources Manager Linda Braun, who in turn reported to Rick Carlson1 , Senior Human Resource Manager, whose office was located in Bentonville, Arkansas. Carlson reported to David Scott, Senior Director of Human Resources, also in Bentonville. (Docs. 19 & 25, ¶ 5).
Within two weeks of arriving at the Fayetteville Optical Lab/Call Center, Simmons contends rumors developed that she and Ellison were in a romantic relationship. (Docs. 19 & 25, ¶ 13). Home Office Manager Steve Proffitt allegedly asked Ellison if he was "hittin that" ("hitting," an euphemism for sexual relations; "that" referring to Simmons.) Proffitt supposedly made other "insinuations" that Simmons and Ellison were "hanging out together a lot." When Simmons confronted Proffitt about suchcomments, he apologized and promised not to talk about it anymore. (Doc. 17-1, Simmons's Deposition pp. 23-25).
Plaintiff contends Co-Manager Don Hawkins asked another manager about any Simmons-Ellison relationship and relayed to her that he had witnessed Ellison picking Simmons up at mealtime--on his day off. (Doc. 17-2, Ellison's 10/7/10 statement). Plaintiff also contends that Braun, Simmons's supervisor, told Simmons that she was not allowed to have friendships with the managers in the lab "because of [her] position in HR." (Doc. 17-1, Simmons's Deposition p. 33). Simmons admits that she was spending a lot of time with Ellison, but insists Ellison was only helping her get some "system issues straightened out." (Doc. 17-1, p. 31).
Within the next few weeks, Ellison moved out of his home and Simmons asked Braun if it would be alright for Ellison to rent a room from her. Braun told her they could not live in the same house because it "might upset one of his (Ellison's) associates; they might not feel comfortable coming to you." (Doc. 17-1, p. 21). Braun further told her that even the perception2 by other employees that Simmons and Ellison were in arelationship, or even friends, should be avoided, and for that reason they should not go to lunch together or take breaks together. (Doc. 17-1, p. 21). When Simmons went to Braun complaining of the "gossip, innuendo and sexist remarks," Braun told Simmons and Ellison that they were "just going to have to outrun this3 ." (Doc. 1).
In her deposition, Simmons testified that early in April, she and Ellison attended a training session facilitated by Rueben Perez, Director, HR Investigations. (Doc. 22-6, p. 18). Because "such a ruckus had been made about [her] relationship with [Ellison]," Simmons asked Perez a "hypothetical question regarding the fact that the leadership in the lab seemed to be so unhappy about the friendship that had formed between [them]." Simmons discussed with Perez "policies that--in writing explicitly stating certain things, was there some way to override those without some written clarification." He said: (Doc. 22-6, p. 18).
On April 30, Ellison moved in with Simmons and on May 1, Ellison and Simmons married. No one at Walmart was advised of the marriage.
According to his deposition testimony, Ellison's supervisor, David Finley, came to the lab and told Ellison that he had talked to Rick Carlson, Senior Human Resource Manager, about the relationship between Simmons and Ellison and the perception it was causing. (Doc. 22-5 pp. 27-28). According to Ellison, Finley said, "I am sure you would not want to do anything to jeopardize Theresa's position and she would not want to jeopardize yours.4 " (Doc. 17-2, Ellison's 10/7/10 statement.)
Ellison told his supervisor that he and Simmons were just "friends" and there was no policy against being friends. Simmons assured Finley that he would make an effort to "minimize [their] time together in the facility that was not required to perform [his] job duties, but [he] did not say that [he] would not see her away from work as friends." (Doc. 17-2). It was at this time, according to Simmons, that he began to feel that Ellison and he were being treated differently than other managers.
After Ellison made the arrangement with Finley, he went to Simmons and told her about it. Simmons went to her supervisor, Braun, and offered to make a similar one; she agreed that she would not acknowledge a relationship with Ellison while they were in the building together.
On May 12, 2010, Simmons received a verbal Coaching for Improvement5 from Braun regarding Simmons's recent role in the discipline of an associate. The Coaching stated:
Theresa is still very new at the HROM role and is still learning all processes. There are some things that Theresa needs to focus on for her to be successful in her role at 9149. Encourage the Open Door, Meet all Deadlines, Make decisions based on facts, not emotion, keep any negativity about work processes between her and her manager. I am confident that Theresa will focus on these opportunities and turn them around quickly.
Braun noted on the form that Simmons's performance resulted in decreased morale and could possibly have an effect on turnover numbers.
The expected performance was that Simmons "walk the floor on a regular basis, let the shift managers know if you will be out of the building for an extended period of time (lunch/errands), let AP know when you leave [and] what time to expect you back, meet all deadlines." (Doc. 17-2, Ex. 8).
In mid-May6 , well after they were married, Ellison went to Simmons's supervisor and told her he "would like to pursue a relationship with Theresa...and since it seemed to be creating such a stir...", he asked Braun for assistance in finding another position within the company. (Doc. 17-2, p. 80). Shortly thereafter Simmons went to Braun and said, "Regardless of the nature of our relationship in the building, if it is causing a problem, can you help Gene get a transfer?" (Doc. 17- 1, p. 36). According to Ellison, Braun's assistance was minimal and did not result in finding a position outside the Optical Lab/Call Center. At no time did Ellison or Simmons advise anyone they worked with that they had married in May.
On Friday, September 10, 2010, Simmons received a written Coaching for Improvement from Braun, stating that there had been little improvement in the areas that were discussed during the verbal coaching in May. "Theresa needs to make immediate improvement in her areas of responsibility (i.e. HR admin, Associate engagement)." The effects of her performance were noted to include "associate morale, decreased productivity, impact on her team's ability to trust her." Braun indicated the need for Simmons to own all aspects of her business and "be available not only to the managers but to the associates in thefacility." She was advised to follow through on her commitments and that if she did not improve in 30 days, she would receive further coaching and demotion. (Doc. 17-2, Ex. 9).
The following Monday morning, September 13, 2010, Simmons sent an e-mail to Reuben Perez, HR Investigations Director7 , detailing what she described as the "egregious circumstance" of the behavior to which she had been forced to endure over the last seven months. (Doc. 17-2, Ex. 10). Attached to her email was a numbered list8 of events that represented an outline of her "very unfortunate...
To continue reading
Request your trial