Garcia v. Penske Logistics, LLC

• Decision Date: 18 December 2014
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13–CV–85
• Citation: 165 F.Supp.3d 542
• Parties: Yvette Garcia, Plaintiff, v. Penske Logistics, LLC, et al, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

165 F.Supp.3d 542

Yvette Garcia, Plaintiff,

v.Penske Logistics, LLC, et al, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13–CV–85

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Laredo Division.

Signed December 18, 2014

Robert Christan Pittard, Forte Pittard PLLC, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff.

Stephen W. Mooney, Matthew Trainor Gomes, Weinberg Wheeler et al., Atlanta, GA, Victor Guadalupe Villarreal, Laredo, TX, Scott Arthur Agthe, Constangy Brooks Smith LLP, Austin, TX, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Marina Garcia Marmolejo, United States District Judge

On May 29, 2013, Plaintiff Yvette Garcia filed the instant action against her former employer Defendant Penske Logistics, LLC (“Penske”), alleging that Penske terminated her because of her sex (female) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”); age (43) in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”); disability (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ) in violation of the Americans with Disability Act (“ADA”); and for exercising her leave rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).¹ Dkt. Nos. 1 (Original Complaint), 5 (Amended Complaint).

Now pending before the Court is Penske's Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law (Dkt. No. 43), Plaintiff's Response (Dkt. No. 46), and Penske's Reply (Dkt. No. 47). Having carefully considered all of the filings, the evidence in the record, and applicable law, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Motion (Dkt. No. 43) for the reasons explained below.

I. Facts²

Plaintiff started working for Ryder at its Laredo distribution center in 1989 and remained there after Penske acquired Ryder's Laredo operations in 2002. Dkt. No. 46, Ex. 1, Deposition of Yvette Garcia (“Pl. Dep.”) 52:15–19; 54:2–27; Dkt. No. 43, Ex. F, Declaration of Hector Javier Garcia (“Garcia Decl.”) ¶ 3. Penske provides its customers with distribution, logistics, and supply chain assistance. Garcia Decl. ¶ 4. Penske has three locations in Laredo, including one on Mines Road. Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff worked at the Mines Road facility throughout her employment with Penske, and her manager was Hector Javier Garcia. Id. ¶ 8. Penske serviced one external customer out of its Mines Road location: Delphi. Id. ¶ 7. Penske and Delphi had a contract whereby Penske was responsible for providing logistics support and various services to Delphi. Pl. Dep. 56:1–4.

A. Plaintiff's Positions with Penske

Plaintiff's first position with Penske was as a Customer Service Representative; she was subsequently promoted to Senior Customer Service Representative in 2006, then to Customer Service Supervisor in 2007, and then to Customer Service Logistics Manager in 2008, where she worked primarily with Delphi. Garcia Decl., Ex. 4 at PEN00264; Pl. Dep. 70:2–7; 71:3–5; 71:21–24.

In 2009, Delphi requested that Penske create a new Sales Account Manager position for Plaintiff, to which Penske agreed. Pl. Dep., Ex. 13; Pl. Dep. 72:25–73:11. This brand-new position was created solely to service Delphi and Delphi's customers. Garcia Decl. ¶ 10. As part of the new position, Plaintiff reported to Delphi's Sales Manager Ajay Bhargava, though she continued to be paid by Penske. Pl. Dep. 57:19–23, 72:25–73:21; Garcia Decl. ¶ 10. Although Mr. Garcia completed performance evaluations for Plaintiff in 2006, 2007, and 2009, he did not complete any formal evaluations for her after 2009 because she was working under Delphi managers. Garcia Decl. ¶ 13.

B. Plaintiff's Medical Illnesses and Absences

Since at least 2004, Plaintiff suffered from various breathing and asthma problems that led to a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, “COPD.”

Pl. Dep. 59:16–60:10.³ She also had several surgeries that included a laparascopy, the removal of a cyst, and a tonsillectomy, after which she reportedly suffered from a bleeding disorder, though no diagnosis was ever made. Pl. Dep. 62:3–25. As a result of these and other illnesses, Plaintiff requested FMLA leave twenty-five times from 2006 to 2011. Dkt. No. 43 at 17–18; Pl. Dep. Exhs. 6–11, 15–33, 50–51, 53. Penske granted each request. Pl. Dep. 89:11–12. Plaintiff was never disciplined for taking any sick leave, leave of absence, or vacation, and she was not placed in a different job position upon returning from leave. Id. 89:14–17; 64:12–19.

Plaintiff copied Mr. Garcia on each request for time off. Pl. Dep. 89:8–10. Plaintiff's co-workers complained to Mr. Garcia that Plaintiff called in sick at the last minute and that she was inaccessible during absences. Garcia Decl. ¶ 9. Plaintiff received a complaint about her absences from a co-worker. Pl. Dep. 69:14–16. Plaintiff informed Mr. Garcia about the complaint that she received. Pl. Dep. 69:12–23. When Mr. Garcia received such complaints, he told the complaining individuals that Plaintiff was entitled by law to take leaves of absences under the FMLA. Garcia Decl. ¶ 9.

Mr. Garcia told Plaintiff that her co-workers were complaining about her working from home, Pl. Dep. 86:3–12, and Mr. Garcia told her more than once that she was always sick, id. 36:2–5. Mr. Garcia also told others at Delphi that Plaintiff was “sickly.” Id. 40:23–41:2; 42:17–24. When Plaintiff was first offered the sales account position, Mr. Garcia spoke with a Delphi executive, Mark Heacox, concerning Plaintiff and noted that she was often absent and sick. Id. 40:23–41:2; Dkt. No. 43, Ex. B, Deposition of Mark Heacox (“Heacox Dep.”) 80:18–23.

C. Plaintiff's Requests to Work from Home

In 2009 and 2010, Plaintiff made a number of requests to work from home for the day. Pl. Dep. 79:13–23; Pl. Dep. Exhs. 15–27. The requests cited different reasons, including: Plaintiff's health, Pl. Dep. Ex. 15–17; her daughter's health, id. Ex. 19; “rainy weather,” id. Exhs. 23–25; and in some instances, no reason for working from home was provided, id. Exhs. 21, 26. Plaintiff submitted the requests to her supervisor at Delphi and to Mr. Garcia, and the requests were repeatedly granted. Pl. Dep. 88:20–22; Pl. Dep. Exhs. 15–27. On April 13, 2010, Plaintiff's Delphi supervisor at the time, John Kalusniak, told Plaintiff that she could work from home as she saw fit. Pl. Dep. Ex. 28.

D. Delphi Employee Complaints Against Plaintiff

In the spring of 2010, Plaintiff began a romantic relationship with Mark Heacox, Delphi's Director of Manufacturing for the Americas. Pl. Dep. 41:23–42:2; Heacox Dep. 23:19–21. On March 2, 2011, Delphi Investigations Manager Jarriel Koplin received a complaint from a Delphi employee alleging that Mr. Heacox was covering Plaintiff's expenses for lodging, vehicles, and meals with his company credit card, even though such expenses were not business related. Dkt. No. 43, Ex. G, Declaration of Jarriel A. Koplin (“Koplin Decl.”) at 5. The complaint also alleged that Plaintiff had yelled at the complainant during a telephone call, saying, “you better do it or you will lose your job, I will let Mark Heacox know, so he will take care of you.”

Id.

On March 23, 2011, Mr. Koplin received a complaint from Delphi employee Roman Chavira describing Plaintiff as “rude and demanding.” Id. at 7. In the complaining email, Mr. Chavira described several conversations he had with Plaintiff in which she warned him that she would speak to Mr. Heacox and make sure that Mr. Chavira no longer works for Delphi. Id.

Mr. Koplin also received a letter from Delphi Warehouse General Supervisor David Mercer, signed and dated May 23, 2011, in which Mr. Mercer complained about a “verbal beating” that he received from Plaintiff in two phone conversations, and he observed that Plaintiff threatened to go to upper management “whenever she encounters an answer she doesn't like.” Id. at 8.

During the course of Delphi's investigation, Delphi's Audit Manager for Mexico and Latin America, Greg Ward, sent an email to Delphi's Laredo Plant Manager questioning the justification for Plaintiff's position within Delphi. Heacox Dep. Ex. 5 at 4; Heacox Dep. Ex. 4. Mr. Ward also alerted Mr. Garcia to the ongoing investigation and requested information concerning Plaintiff. Garcia Decl., Ex. 4 (PEN00262).

E. Delphi's Instruction to Remove Plaintiff from its Account

Following the investigation, on June 6, 2011, Mark Cashdollar, Delphi's Human Resources Director, called Mr. Heacox and informed him that Delphi's investigation did not uncover fraud or malfeasance on the part of Mr. Heacox, though they did find irregularities concerning personal expenses charged to the company credit card, for which he would forfeit a salary increase in the following year. Heacox. Dep. 55:5–15. As to Plaintiff, Mr. Cashdollar told Mr. Heacox that Delphi's “corner office” had decided to move Plaintiff off the Delphi account “because they did not like the way it looked and could lead to more questions.” Id. 55:22–24; 57:3–13; Pl. Dep. 118:18–20 (noting that “the ramifications of the investigation” were “that I was going to be removed from that particular account”). Mr. Heacox understood “corner office” to refer to Delphi's President, James Spencer. Heacox Dep. 57:12–23. One week later, Mr. Cashdollar sent an email to Mr. Garcia stating Delphi “will no longer be requiring [Plaintiff's] services” and instructing Mr. Garcia to “coordinate an exit date for [Plaintiff].” Garcia Decl., Ex. 5 (PEN00315).

F. Delphi's Rejection of Alternate Positions

After being instructed by Delphi to remove Plaintiff from its account, Mr. Garcia contacted Penske Area Human Resource Manager Krista Buescher to find alternate positions for Plaintiff at Penske. Dkt. No. 43, Ex. E, Declaration of Krista Buescher (“Buescher Decl.”) ¶¶ 5–6. Ms. Buescher and Mr. Garcia identified two available positions for Plaintiff: a customer service representative position and a billing clerk position. Id. ¶ 6; Garcia Decl. ¶ 22. Both positions were at the Mines Road facility and required interaction with Delphi. Garcia Decl. ¶ 24. Ms. Buescher and Mr. Garcia decided to offer the two available positions to Plaintiff and let her choose...