Epps-Milton v. Genesee Intermediate Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 10 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14-11861 |
| Parties | NOELLE EPPS-MILTON, Plaintiff, v. GENESEE INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, AIMEE PHILLIPS, GLORIA BOURDON, LISA HAGEL, GRETCHEN STETLER, MICHAEL MOORMAN, MARY BEHM, MELINDA MCGRAW, and GISD BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Hon. Patrick J. Duggan
Plaintiff Noelle Epps-Milton, a pro se litigant, initiated this employment discrimination action against her employer, the Genesee Intermediate School District ("Genesee ISD"), as well as seven Genesee ISD employees (the "Individual Defendants") - each of whom is sued in their individual and official capacities - and the Genesee ISD Board of Education (collectively, "Defendants") alleging various transgressions of both state and federal law. Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed pursuant toFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).1 Plaintiff declined to respond to the motion. Having determined that oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process, the Court dispensed with oral argument pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f)(2).
For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants Defendants' Motion. As a result of Defendants' failure to seek dismissal of Plaintiff's claim of race discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as this Court's belief that there are sufficient factual allegations to withstand dismissal, this claim remains.
Plaintiff, an African American woman, began working for Genesee ISD as a Club Leader on April 9, 2009. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1-2.) Sometime after this date, non-party Marian Keenan approached Plaintiff and informed her that Genesee ISD "was looking for African Americans to place in higher-paying positions for appearances of diversity." (Id. ¶ 3.) Defendant Gloria Bourdon, Director of Health, Safety and Nutrition Services at Genesee ISD "directed" Plaintiff "to apply for [an open] Nutrition Advocate position, which[,] based upon the job description, [Plaintiff] was not qualified to fill." (Id. ¶ 4.) "Bourdon indicated that [Plaintiff] would be given the job solely because she is African American." (Id. ¶ 6.) OnOctober 1, 2009, Plaintiff began working forty hours per week as a Nutrition Advocate and Bourdon became Plaintiff's supervisor. (Id. ¶ 9.)
The following October, an issue arose with Plaintiff's family. Specifically, while at school on October 13, 2010, one of her two "mentally disabled" sons attempted to commit suicide and required medical attention. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14.) By this date, Plaintiff had been working as a Nutrition Advocate for just over one year, estimating that she worked between "2,120 - 2,160 hours." (Id. ¶ 12.) On October 14, 2010, Plaintiff requested a temporary reduction in hours to enable her to care for her child, and Genesee ISD, acting through Bourdon, honored this request and permitted Plaintiff to work thirty, as opposed to forty, hours per week. (Id. ¶¶ 16-17.) Plaintiff apparently worked "the reduced 10 hours from home without pay or compensation." (Id. ¶ 18.)
On November 9, 2010, Plaintiff emailed Bourdon asking that her hours be restored. Bourdon responded to Plaintiff's email on November 10, 2010, informing Plaintiff that the hours were no longer available. However, on November 16, 2010, Genesee ISD posted a vacancy notice indicating that there were two part-time Nutrition Advocate positions available, each position for twenty hours per week. These two positions were subsequently condensed into one full-time position(forty hours per week), and a Caucasian male was hired. (Am. Compl. ¶ 34.) Soon thereafter, in mid-February 2011, a Caucasian female was hired to fill an "unannounced" full-time Nutrition Advocate position. (Id. ¶ 35.)
On February 16, 2011 - the day after the white woman was hired - Bourdon evaluated a presentation Plaintiff was giving at a local elementary school. (Id. ¶ 36.) This was apparently the first time a presentation by a Nutrition Advocate was evaluated. (Id. ¶ 37.) On February 23, 2011, Boudon sent a memorandum to Plaintiff outlining her concerns with Plaintiff's "lack of performance and unprofessional behavior." The memorandum sets forth several problems Bourdon observed at the event, in addition to issues regarding Plaintiff misreporting hours and Plaintiff's work schedule. (Id.) Plaintiff responded to the allegations in writing prior to the February 28, 2011 meeting to discuss the contents of the memorandum. In attendance at this meeting were Plaintiff, Bourdon, Defendant Melissa McGraw, a human resources administrator for Genesee ISD, and Defendant Gretchen Stetler, a team leader for nutrition and Plaintiff's direct supervisor. (Am. Compl. ¶ 40.) It is unclear what transpired at this meeting.
On April 20, 2011, Bourdon "verbally reprimanded" Plaintiff "for conducting a presentation [that] Bourdon had approved instead of attending a professional development meeting in Lansing." (Id. ¶ 42.) The same day, Stetlercomplained about Plaintiff to Bourdon, indicating that Plaintiff had returned dishes from a nutrition seminar without rinsing them. According to Plaintiff, her job duties did not including washing dishes. Stetler's memorandum is mindful of Plaintiff's concern, but notes that Nutrition Advocates are expected to rinse the dishes to remove food particles.
On April 21, 2011, Bourdon cancelled a scheduled presentation that Plaintiff was supposed to give at a local school and did not notify Plaintiff of the cancellation. (Am. Compl. ¶ 45-46.) Bourdon never cancelled any presentations scheduled for Caucasian Nutrition Advocates. (Id. ¶ 46.) Plaintiff indicates that she met with Bourdon after learning of the cancellation and that Bourdon told Plaintiff that "she could work . . . in the kitchen . . . counting the napkins, forks, and spoons." (Id. ¶ 49.) Such duties were not the responsibility of a Nutrition Advocate, but rather of the kitchen staff. (Id.)
As a result of these incidents, Plaintiff "reported harassment and a hostile work environment" to Defendant Lisa Hagel, the Genesee ISD Superintendent, on April 25, 2011 and requested a meeting. (Id. ¶ 51; Am. Comp. Ex. G.) Hagel declined to meet with Plaintiff, indicating that Defendant Mary Behm, the Assistant Superintendent, was the individual Plaintiff should contact regarding a meeting. (Am. Compl. ¶ 52.)
On April 26, 2011, Plaintiff met with human resources "regarding additional false allegations instigated against her to justify termination of her employment." (Id. ¶ 54.) Following this meeting, which was purportedly to discuss Plaintiff's performance issues from February through April 2011, Plaintiff was placed on an "Action Plan." This action plan set forth a list of expectations Plaintiff was required to meet going forward. One instruction provides that Plaintiff will rinse all dishes and utensils before returning them and that Plaintiff "will be expected to wash dishes for future events as needed." However, "[n]o Caucasian Nutrition Advocate was required to wash the dishes." (Am. Compl. ¶ 57.) Another instruction directed Plaintiff to bring concerns about department management directly to Bourdon instead of speaking negatively about the management elsewhere.
On April 28, 2011, Plaintiff informed Hagel that Behm disciplined her because of her report of harassment to Hagel and that Plaintiff feared retaliation.
Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights ("MDCR") in June 2011.2 Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew this charge.
On October 7, 2011, Plaintiff alleges that some sort of "sabotage" occurred because she turned in "task sheets" on time but that they somehow disappearedfrom Bourdon's office. (Am. Compl. ¶ 63.) Plaintiff was "disciplined for the task sheets not being timely presented." (Id.)
Because of the emotional stress caused by what Plaintiff repeatedly refers to as a hostile work environment, she requested FMLA leave on October 27, 2011. (Id. ¶ 63.) On November 10, 2011, Plaintiff was notified that Defendant Michael Moorman, the Deputy Superintendent, determined that Plaintiff was not eligible for FMLA leave. (Id. ¶ 66.) Plaintiff explains that this ineligibility determination was made because "due to the reduction to 30 hours per week," Plaintiff "had not worked the required 1,250 hours to qualify for FMLA leave[.]" (Id. ¶ 67.)
On December 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second charge of discrimination with the MDCR. (Defs.' Mot. Ex. C.) In the charge, Plaintiff complained of race discrimination, unequal wages, retaliation, and denial of FMLA leave. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that she received a right-to-sue letter in February 2014.3
Plaintiff filed the present action on May 9, 2014. On May 15, 2014, after a preliminary evaluation of Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 2, 2014.
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint coversheet indicates that Plaintiff complains of violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, and 1986, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 206, the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (the "Fair Pay Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(3)(A), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act ("ELCRA"), ...
To continue reading
Request your trial