Freeman v. Koch Foods of Ala.

Citation777 F.Supp.2d 1264
Decision Date31 March 2011
Docket NumberCase No. 2:09–cv–270–MEF.
PartiesEvette S. FREEMAN, Plaintiff,v.KOCH FOODS OF ALABAMA, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

John David Saxon, Frelon Abbott, III, John D. Saxon, PC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.Wesley Clyde Redmond, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARK E. FULLER, Chief Judge.

This cause is before the Court on three motions. First, Defendant Koch Foods of Alabama (Koch Foods) filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. # 40), on May 3, 2010. That same day, Koch Foods also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 41). Finally, Plaintiff Evette S. Freeman (Freeman) filed a Response to Show Cause Order and Alternative Motion for Leave to Amend Her Complaint, (Doc. # 64), on December 30, 2010. The instant action involves the following allegations: (1) retaliation and constructive discharge under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq.; (2) disability discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.; (3) and race discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge under both 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (§ 1981) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.1 After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel and the record as a whole, the Court finds that the motion for leave to amend the complaint, (Doc. # 64), is due to be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, the Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. # 40), is due to be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. # 41), is due to be GRANTED.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(3). Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(3).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I. Facts

Freeman is an African–American female who began working for Sylvest Farms as an Accounts Receivable Clerk in 1999. (Doc. # 49, at 2, ¶¶ 1–2; Doc. # 42, at 3, ¶ 2). In May of 2003, she earned a bachelors degree in human resource management from Faulkner University. (Doc. # 49, at 3, ¶ 5). In 2005 and 2006, Freeman took classes towards obtaining a master's degree in business, with a concentration in accounting, from Troy University. Id. ¶ 6. She alleges that she took accounting classes “because she had been denied multiple positions” at work. Id. ¶ 7.

Koch Foods, which is in the business of poultry processing and packaging, purchased Sylvest Farms' assets on June 1, 2006. (Doc. # 42, at 3, ¶¶ 1–2). While still working for Sylvest Farms, Freeman had been transferred into the purchasing department where she handled the paperwork for items coming into the facility. (Doc. # 43 Ex. 2, Pl.'s Dep., 84:9–12). Prior to June 1, 2006, she was transferred back to the Accounts Receivable Clerk position. Id. After the purchase, Freeman continued to work as an Accounts Receivable Clerk for Koch Foods with Debra Matthews (“Matthews”) as her manager. (Doc. # 42, at 3–4, ¶ 5; Doc. # 49, at 3, ¶¶ 8–9). The Accounts Receivable area was part of the Accounting Department, which was supervised by the Controller, Lyman Campbell (“Campbell”). (Doc. # 42, at 3–4, ¶ 5; Doc. # 49, at 3, ¶¶ 10–11).

Koch Foods maintains an Equal Employment Opportunity and Harassment Policy (“EEO Policy”) prohibiting discrimination based on, inter alia, race and disability. (Doc. # 42, at 3, ¶ 3). “The EEO Policy provides that in the event an employee feels she is being harassed or discriminated against she should report that to the Complex Manager, the Complex [Human Resources] Manager, or the Corporate Director of Human Resources.” Id. ¶ 14. Freeman received and signed a copy of the EEO Policy. Id. ¶ 13.

A. The HR Positions

After receiving her bachelor's degree in human resources management, Freeman claims that she repeatedly asked Campbell for a position in the Human Resources (“HR”) Department over the next several years. (Doc. # 1, at 2–3, ¶ 9; Doc. # 49, at 7, ¶ 39). She claims that Campbell denied her requests each time, telling her that she lacked experience and that the position required a Spanish speaker. (Doc. # 1, at 3, ¶ 10). However, Freeman contends that there were employees in HR who did not speak Spanish and that two different HR Supervisors—Cynthia Thomas and LaShawn Collins (“Collins”)—told her that the position did not require knowledge of the Spanish language. Id. ¶¶ 12–13.

According to Freeman, Collins spoke to Jim Jones (“Jones”), an Administrative HR Manager, in order to support Freeman's transfer to HR. Jones allegedly informed Freeman that he had only heard good things about her work performance, and would discuss the matter with [Campbell].” However, Jones later rejected her transfer request and refused to provide her with a reason why. Id. ¶ 16. Freeman also claims that she spoke to another HR manager, Don Hillburn (“Hillburn”), who told her “that he would move her to HR, but that she would have to speak to [Campbell] about it.” (Doc. # 49, at 7, ¶¶ 42–43). According to Freeman, a third HR manager, Maritza Gamble (“Gamble”), also spoke to her about obtaining an HR position and told her that she had no problem with the transfer but needed to speak to Campbell prior to making any offers. (Doc. # 1, at 3, ¶ 17; Doc. # 49, at 7, ¶¶ 44–45).

Freeman claims that Gamble spoke to Campbell, who told her to offer Freeman a night-shift position knowing that she would decline the offer because of her children. (Doc. # 1, at 3, ¶ 18; Doc. # 49, at 7–8, ¶¶ 46–47). She further alleges that she “approached [Campbell] about his statements, and he stated that she was not one of ‘those’ people, and that he did not understand why she wanted a transfer.” (Doc. # 1, at 4, ¶ 19). Campbell allegedly asked her why she wanted to transfer out of the Accounting Department. Id. ¶ 20. Freeman states that she “informed him that not only was she carrying the bulk of the workload in the department, but that conversations in the department usually lead to comments about black ethnicity.” Id. Her manager had allegedly told her that some co-workers had problems working with African–Americans. Id. ¶ 21. However, she claims that Campbell failed to respond to her concerns.

Koch Foods admits that some employees in HR do not speak Spanish, but denies the remaining allegations. (Doc. # 6, at 2–3, ¶¶ 9–10, 12–22). Koch Foods claims that Campbell “never told anyone in [HR] to offer [Freeman] a position in [HR].” (Doc. # 42, at 9, ¶ 32). Furthermore, Koch Foods points out that, when Freeman began allegedly requesting transfers to HR in 2003, this was before Koch Foods owned the Montgomery facility where Freeman worked. Id. at 10, ¶ 38. Finally, Koch Foods contends that “Freeman is unable to identify any of the dates when she asked for a position in [HR], who received the positions she wanted, or the race of any individuals who received the positions [and that] Freeman cannot identify whether the positions she was seeking in [HR] were available while she was employed by Sylvest Farms or Koch Foods.” Id. ¶ 41.

B. Freeman's Diagnosis and Medical Leave

In July of 2006, Freeman was diagnosed with breast cancer. (Doc. # 42, at 4, ¶ 7; Doc. # 49, at 3, ¶ 12). Upon learning her of her diagnosis, Freeman alleges that she informed Matthews of her illness and her need to take FMLA leave. (Doc. # 49, at 4, ¶ 14). Because Freeman had not yet informed her family of the illness, she asked for her condition to be kept confidential. Id. ¶ 15. She claims that Matthews “sent out a company-wide email informing Koch [Foods'] employees of [Freeman's] breast cancer diagnosis.” Id. ¶ 16. Freeman learned of the alleged email from another Koch Foods employee who worked near Bainbridge, Georgia. Id. ¶ 17. Koch Foods denies that such an email was sent. (Doc. # 6, at 4, ¶ 23). In August of 2006, Freeman requested FMLA leave in order to receive treatment for her breast cancer. (Doc. # 42, at 4, ¶ 7; Doc. # 49, at 3, ¶ 13). Koch Foods granted her request and Freeman began her FMLA leave that same month. (Doc. # 42, at 4, ¶ 7; Doc. # 49, at 3, ¶ 13).

C. The Accounts Receivable and Accounts Payable Positions

While Freeman was on medical leave, Koch Foods hired Tiffany Harden (“Harden”), a white female, to work in Accounts Payable. (Doc. # 43 Ex. 2, Pl.'s Dep. 106:1–11). Koch Foods also hired Lorraine Haats (“Haats”), a white female, on September 26, 2006 to work in the Accounting Department. (Doc. # 42, at 5, ¶ 13; Doc. # 49, at 4, ¶ 18). Haats initially worked in the Accounts Receivable area and performed Freeman's duties while she was on FMLA leave. (Doc. # 42, at 5, ¶ 15; Doc. # 49, at 4, ¶¶ 18–19). Freeman claims that Haats was paid more than her while performing the same duties as an Accounts Receivable clerk. (Doc. # 49, at 4, ¶ 20). However, Koch Foods asserts that, prior to being hired, Haats “had experience ... in accounting and bookkeeping and had worked as an Office Manager, Full Charge Bookkeeper, and Accounting Assistant.” (Doc. # 42, at 5, ¶ 14) and that her “pay was based on her skills and experiences compared to other Koch Foods [sic] employees, including Freeman.” (Doc. # 42, at 5–6, ¶¶ 14, 17). It further claims that Haats was also training for the Accounts Payable position while working in Accounts Receivable. Id. at 6, ¶ 19 (“During Freeman's FMLA leave, Ms. Haats was training for an Accounts Payable job, and the plan was for her to take the job of another employee, Morgan Gavin, in Accounts Payable.”). Koch Foods contends that the “plan was also to use [Haats] for special projects and to move her into Accounts Payable. The intention the entire time was for [Haats] to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Locascio v. BBDO Atlanta, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • October 20, 2014
    ...law. Section 1981 prohibits “discriminat[ion] on the basis of race in the making and enforcing of contracts,” Freeman v. Koch Foods of Ala., 777 F.Supp.2d 1264, 1280 (M.D.Ala.2011) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) ), and the allegations of the amended complaint plausibly establish the following ......
  • Morris v. S. Intermodal Xpress, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • June 9, 2020
    ...Short v. Immokalee Water & Sewer Dist., 165 F. Supp. 3d 1129, 1147 (M.D. Fla. 2016) (citations omitted); Freeman v. Koch Foods of Ala., 777 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 1281 (M.D. Ala. 2011). 5. It is not clear whether Morris alleges a racially hostile work environment, a retaliatory hostile work envi......
  • Cleveland v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • May 5, 2017
    ...she received twelve weeks of leave—be it paid or unpaid, personal or family, vacation or medical"); Freeman v. Koch Foods of Ala., 777 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 1289 (M.D. Ala. 2011) ("[T]he right to reinstatement terminated once the twelve weeks of FMLA leave are finished."); Cox v. Autozone, Inc.......
  • Battle v. Corizon, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • June 30, 2016
    ...leave. Doc. 29-1 at 10-13. In support of its position, Defendant cites three authorities, including Freeman v. Koch Foods of Alabama, 777 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 1289 (M.D. Ala. 2011). See also May v. AT&T Corp, No. 2:11-cv-01923-TMP, 2013 WL 3357005, at *11 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 8, 2013) (noting that ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT