Fuller v. Edward B. Stimpson Co.
| Decision Date | 23 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 11–61574–CIV. |
| Citation | 971 F.Supp.2d 1146 |
| Parties | Elzie FULLER, III, Plaintiff, v. EDWARD B. STIMPSON CO., INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Donald R. McCoy, Donald R. McCoy, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff.
Anisley Tarragona, Brown and Heller, P.A., Miami, FL, Diane Patricia Perez, Thomas Mead Santoro, Noah E. Storch, Jackson Lewis LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant.
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [D.E. 41] and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [D.E. 43]. The Court has reviewed the Motions, all supporting and opposing filings, and the record in the case. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied.
Plaintiff Elzie Fuller III brings claims for employment discrimination and retaliation against Defendant Edwin B. Stimpson Co., Inc., arising out of Plaintiff's long-term employment with Defendant and his subsequent termination in February 2009. D.E. 1. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against on account of his race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a) (Count I), and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, § 760.10(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (Count III), that he was retaliated against for engaging in a protected activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3 (Count II), and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, § 760.10(7), Fla. Stat. (Count IV), and that he was discriminated against under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, 623(a) and Florida Civil Rights Act § 760. 10, Fla. Stat. (Count V) and (Count VI). Id.
Defendant moves for summary judgment against Plaintiff on all six counts. D.E. 41. For his part, Plaintiff seeks partial summary judgment on Counts I and III of his Complaint, which assert that Plaintiff's race was an impermissible motivating factor in Defendant's decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment in February 2009. See D.E. 43.
Defendant Edwin B. Stimpson Co. (“Stimpson”) manufactures metal eyelets, grommets, snap fasteners, and hole plugs. D.E. 42–1 at ¶ 5. Plaintiff Elzie Fuller III (“Fuller”) was employed by Stimpson as a machinist from 1970 to 2009, when he was one of eighty-six employees terminated in a mass reduction in force. D.E. 43–2, ¶ 1. At the time that his employment with Stimpson ended, Fuller's specific position was as a tool-and-die maker in Stimpson's tool-and-die department. D.E. 43–2, ¶ 1.
Fuller identifies himself as being of African–American descent, and when he was terminated, he was fifty-six years old. D.E. 47–1 at 183:1–:20; 1 D.E. 42–1 at ¶ 15. Over the course of his thirty-nine-year tenure with Stimpson, Fuller claims that he was passed over for several job promotions based on his age, race, or both. D.E. 47–1 at 101:11–102:20.
Stimpson counters, and the record confirms, that Fuller was hired as a Lathe Apprentice and received some promotions during his employment. D.E. 42–1, ¶ 16; see also D.E. 47–1 at 103:11–106:9. More specifically, in the mid–1970's, Fuller was promoted to a position then known as Assistant to Foreman, or Assistant Foreman. D.E. 42–1, ¶ 16. On May 22, 1978, he was transferred to another department, and his position changed to Tool & Die Maker C. Id. He was promoted to Tool & Die Maker B on August 9, 1993. Id. Four years later, Fuller became a Tool & Die Maker A on August 9, 1993. Id. On February 4, 2002, Fuller was promoted to Lead Person in the Tool & Die Department, but, at his own request, on August 6, 2004, he transferred back to the position of Tool & Die Maker A, although he experienced no reduction in salary. D.E. 47–1 at 103:11–106:9; D.E. 42–1, ¶ 16. According to Stimpson, Fuller applied for no other positions or promotions. D.E. 42–1 at ¶ 16. Fuller complains, however, that he was passed over on four occasions for the position of Lead Person before Charles Tarling, Fuller's Foreman at the time, offered Fuller the position in 2002. D.E. 47–1 at 101:11–106:15.
In 2008, Stimpson experienced a steep drop in orders. D.E. 42–1 at ¶ 6. As a result, it concluded that it needed to lay off close to 30% of its workforce. Id. at ¶ 7. During the first week of January 2009, Stimpson began determining the employees to be laid off by evaluating the activity levels of the employees for the months of November and December 2008. Id. at ¶ 10. In a Workforce Evaluation Memorandum, Stimpson described the factors considered as follows:
Management prepared a list for each Group that contained the general goal (30%) and suggested job classifications for reduction. Management representatives reviewed this list with first line supervisors considering each employee[']s productivity, flexibility, cross-training, reliability and attendance to develop a specific recommendation for each group.
Senior management reviewed the overall list and submitted for legal review.
On February 2, 2009, Stimpson posted a Bulletin Board Notice to its employees explaining that a company-wide workforce reduction would be necessary because of a downturn in business and stating that employment decisions would be finalized within a few weeks. D.E. 42–1 at 3, ¶ 11; D.E. 42–1 at 16. At the end of the month, Stimpson terminated eighty-six of its 308 employees in a mass reduction in force (“RIF”). D.E. 42, ¶ 9.
Stimpson made the RIF terminations over the course of a three-day period beginning on Wednesday, February 25, 2009, and ending on Friday, February 27, 2009. D.E. 42, ¶ 9. On the morning of February 27, 2009, Stimpson informed Fuller that his employment was being terminated effective that day. D.E. 42–1, ¶¶ 19–22.
Stimpson explained in a letter sent to the terminated employees, including Fuller, “Employees were selected for termination based on productivity, flexibility, cross training, reliability, attendance, and seniority.” D.E. 44–4. According to Scott H. Thomas, who, at the time of the RIF, served as the executive vice president of Stimpson,2 the foremen and the department heads of each of the respective job groupings used the criteria previously described to make recommendations regarding which employees should be terminated. See D.E. 46–3 at 84:20–85:1. Then, in the case of employees such as Fuller, who were in the Power Press Tool & Die group, Thomas and Stephen Karp of management reviewed the recommendations with Charles Tarling, the foreman of the group. See D.E. 42–1 at ¶ 10; id. at 12, 17. At that time, Thomas was 50, Karp was 59, and Tarling was 43. D.E. 42–1 at 19–20. All were white.
Following the initial selection of employees to be terminated, the list of individuals that the foremen and management decided should be terminated was provided to Jim Cuenin, an executive vice president at Stimpson, and he used the information to prepare a document called the Workforce Review spreadsheet. See D.E. 46–3 at 75:20–:22; id. at 46–3 at 84:14–85:1. The Workforce Review spreadsheet lists all employees by their department, job classification, race, gender, age, and years of service, among other information. See D.E. 42–1 at 19–20. In so doing, however, it groups together all employees of a certain type who are of the same race. See D.E. 42–1 at 19–20.
For example, all employees in the “Power Press” group, which includes those in the Power Press, Die Lathe, Grinding, and Tool & Die Departments, are listed in a three-page segment of the spreadsheet. See D.E. 44–2 at 9–11; D.E. 42–1 at 11. The “Power Press” listing is further subdivided according to the employees' race, so, for example, all non-clerical employees in the Power Press group who are identified by Stimpson as “black” are grouped together. See D.E. 44–2 at 9. The Workforce Review spreadsheet contains similar groupings for employees identified by Stimpson as “white,” “Hispanic,” and “Asian,” respectively. See id. at 9–11. In addition, the spreadsheet provides information on each employee's gender, age, and years of service at Stimpson. See id. Finally, for each grouping by race, the spreadsheet provides a calculation of the percentage of employees of that race who were to be included in the RIF, under the heading “Go % By Race.” Id. The percentages of employees of different racial backgrounds in the same job category as Fuller who were terminated in the RIF are as follows:
Job Category
Power Press Crafts Worker 27.3% 27.8% 19% 50%
After the Workforce Review spreadsheet was prepared, Stimpson reviewed the spreadsheet “to see that [Stimpson, through the RIF, was] not adversely affecting any racial group.” D.E. 46–3 at 84:3–:6; see also D.E. 46–3 at 84:14–19, 85:23–86:6. Three termination decisions were changed as a result of Stimpson's review of the spreadsheet: (1) originally, a husband and wife were to be terminated, but to avoid that situation, Stimpson terminated only one of them; (2) Stimpson decided that in the accounting department, a black female who had been recommended for termination would not be terminated; and (3) in the maintenance department, Stimpson chose not to terminate a black male who had been selected for termination before review of the spreadsheet. D.E. 46–3 at 85:2–:22. Stimpson avers that the original decision to terminate Fuller, however, did not change. See id. at 85:23–86:6. Nor was Fuller added for termination as a result of Stimpson's review of the Workforce Review spreadsheet. See D.E. 46–3 at 75:20–86:6.
According to Stimpson, it selected Fuller for termination because of his attendance record. D.E. 42–1 at ¶ 27. More specifically, Stimpson's records disclosed that Fuller was either late to work or left early on fifty-seven occasions in 2008. Id. Stimpson...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dortch, Figures & Sons, Inc. v. City of Mobile
...See generally Fuller v. Edwin B. Stimpson Co., Inc., 598 Fed. Appx. 652, 653-654 (11th Cir. 2015) and Fuller v. Edwin B. Stimpson Co., Inc., 971 F.Supp.2d 1146, 1175-1176 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (discussing same). There is no independent private cause of action available to Dortch under Executive ......