Hall v. Sky Chefs Inc.

• Decision Date: 22 March 2011
• Docket Number: Case No. 09–10637.
• Citation: 784 F.Supp.2d 811
• Parties: Tegra HALL, Plaintiff,v.SKY CHEFS, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

784 F.Supp.2d 811

Tegra HALL, Plaintiff,

v.SKY CHEFS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 09–10637.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

March 22, 2011.

Christopher J. Trainor, Shawn C. Cabot, Trainer Assoc., White Lake, MI, for Plaintiff.Richard M. Tuyn, Vicki J. Patterson, Ogletree, Deakins, Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

GERALD E. ROSEN, Chief Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Tegra Hall commenced this suit in a Michigan court on January 14, 2009, filing what Defendants have aptly termed a “kitchen sink” complaint against her former employer, Defendant Sky Chefs, Inc., and ten of her former co-workers and supervisors at Sky Chefs. In this 143 paragraph, 17 count complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims of race, gender, and religious discrimination and harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and Michigan's Elliott–Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”), Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2101 et seq. , as well as claims of retaliatory discharge under Title VII, the ELCRA, the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., and Michigan's Workers' Disability Compensation Act (“WDCA”), Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.101 et seq. , and a common-law tort claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant Sky Chefs removed the case to this Court on February 20, 2009, citing Plaintiff's assertion of claims arising under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 1331.

By motion filed on March 1, 2010, Defendant Sky Chef and individual Defendants Eric Coleman, Justin Lathem, Jose Venegas, and Karen Damerow seek summary judgment in their favor on each of the claims asserted in Plaintiff's complaint.¹ Among other contentions raised in this motion, Defendants argue (i) that Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on her race, gender, or religion, (ii) that Plaintiff likewise has failed to establish one or more of the elements of a prima facie case of hostile work environment harassment, (iii) that Plaintiff's claims of retaliatory discharge fail for lack of evidence of a causal connection between any protected activity and her discharge, and because Defendants have identified a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for terminating Plaintiff's employment, and (iv) that Plaintiff has failed to identify any basis whatsoever for charging Defendant Karen Damerow, Sky Chef's human resources manager, with liability under any of the theories advanced in Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to this motion on April 5, 2010, addressing several of the points raised in Defendants' motion and evidently continuing to maintain that all 17 counts of the complaint remain viable following discovery, but leaving some of Defendants' challenges unanswered. Defendants then filed an April 16, 2010 reply in further support of their motion.

Having reviewed the parties' briefs in support of and opposition to Defendants' motion, as well as their accompanying exhibits and the record as a whole, the Court finds that the relevant allegations, facts, and legal arguments are adequately presented in these written submissions, and that oral argument would not aid the decisional process. Accordingly, the Court will decide Defendants' motion “on the briefs.” See Local Rule 7. 1(f)(2), U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that this motion should be granted.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Defendant Sky Chefs, Inc. provides catering services to various airlines. Plaintiff Tegra Hall is an African–American female who was hired by Sky Chefs in May of 2005. Plaintiff was employed as a utility worker in Sky Chef' s sanitation department at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, where she performed such tasks as loading, unloading, washing and sanitizing food service trolleys. During her employment with Sky Chefs, Plaintiff was a member of Local 24 of the H.E.R.E. union.

A. Plaintiff's Complaints About and Difficulties with Her Co–Workers and Supervisors

Between her hiring by Sky Chefs in May of 2005 and her discharge on November 30, 2007, Plaintiff was involved in a number of incidents with co-workers and supervisors, and she lodged a number of complaints about occurrences in the workplace. Sky Chef's human resources manager, Defendant Karen Damerow, testified at her deposition (with some degree of understatement) that Plaintiff “made multiple complaints on multiple issues” during her tenure at Sky Chefs, ( see Defendants' Motion, Damerow Dep. at 48), and Defendants state without contradiction in the brief in support of their motion that “over 2,600 pages of documentation [were] compiled” in investigating and addressing these complaints, ( see Defendants' Motion, Br. in Support at 3).

For present purposes, it is not necessary to exhaustively recount these incidents, and a brief summary will suffice. In September of 2006, Plaintiff claimed that co-worker (and Defendant) Jose Venegas deliberately rammed the trolleys into trash cans, causing the cans to strike Plaintiff on her legs. ( See Plaintiff's Dep. at 195, 209–12.) Plaintiff testified that a supervisor and a lead worker,² Defendants Eric Coleman and Derrick Taylor, observed this but took no action. Plaintiff regarded this as an assault and reported the incident to the police. ( See Plaintiff's Dep. at 213–14; see also Defendant's Motion, Ex. E.) Defendant Damerow investigated this incident, and Venegas was disciplined for using inappropriate language. ( See Damerow Dep. at 50–54.)

About a month later, in October of 2006, Plaintiff claimed that she was run over by a flatbed cart pushed by a co-worker identified only as “Nimur.” ( See Plaintiff's Dep. at 62–63, 72–73.) She required medical attention, and once again reported the incident to the police, ( see Defendant's Motion, Ex. F), as well as to an employee hotline, ( see Plaintiff's Dep. at 78–79.) Plaintiff also filed a claim for worker's compensation benefits arising from this incident.³

Throughout this period in 2005–06, and perhaps into 2007, Plaintiff has testified that she was subjected to sexual harassment from her co-workers and supervisors. She testified, for example, that one of her supervisors, Defendant Tracy Steele, “would try to brush his body parts up against mine” and would “tell me what he would like to do to me sexually.” (Plaintiff's Dep. at 108.) Another supervisor, Defendant Darrin Simmons, reportedly “brushed his penis up against [Plaintiff's] bottom” and told her “what type of way he would like to have sex with” her. ( Id. at 117.) A lead worker, Defendant Justin Lathem, sang a song, “Shake Your Laffy Taffy,” to Plaintiff, and Defendant Venegas stared at Plaintiff and made sexually suggestive remarks to her. ( Id. at 120–21.)

Plaintiff has also testified as to race- and religion-based harassment. She testified, for example, that a number of co-workers frequently called her a “black b*tch,” that Defendants Lathem and Venegas used the “N” word in reference to her, and that several co-workers commented on the color of her skin. ( See id. at 96, 166, 174–77.) Plaintiff further testified that her co-workers called her a “fake-*ss Christian” and made other derogatory comments about her when they saw her reading her Bible on her lunch break. ( See id. at 180–82.)

Finally, Plaintiff has testified about mistreatment she suffered in retaliation against her protected activities. She testified that she made complaints of discrimination and harassment to her supervisors and to human resources, but that nothing was done or that, in some instances, the mistreatment intensified. Plaintiff further testified that after she filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on October 31, 2007, she was told by supervisor (and Defendant) Tony Hines that her complaint “wasn't going to go anywhere and that [she] was going to be out of there soon.” ( Id. at 89.) In addition, after Plaintiff took FMLA leave from May to September of 2007 for an injury she sustained while pushing a trolley, she testified that the harassment and mistreatment worsened because her co-workers and supervisors thought she was “gone for good” and they “were not pleased” when she returned from this medical leave. ( Id. at 219.) Similarly, she attributed some of the write-ups, discipline, and unfavorable treatment she received to the fact that she had filed claims for worker's compensation benefits. ( See id. at 89, 93.)

B. Plaintiff's Disciplinary Record and Termination

Over the course of her employment with Sky Chefs, Plaintiff was issued a number of verbal and written advisories and disciplinary notices regarding her conduct in the workplace, culminating in her discharge on November 30, 2007. Again, it is not necessary to comprehensively recount Plaintiff's disciplinary record, and a brief summary will suffice.

First, Plaintiff was issued a verbal advisory for personal conduct arising from the September 2006 incident in which a co-worker reportedly rammed her with a trolley. The documentation for this advisory states that Plaintiff “became loud and argumentative” when approached by management about the incident, and that her manner “was insolent at best, and bordered on insubordination,” and Plaintiff was cautioned that “[b]ehavior of this type ... cannot be tolerated.” (Defendants' Motion, Ex. H.) In this documentation, it was further observed that Plaintiff had made “approximately 18 complaints, charges and grievances regarding roughly 22 different co-workers and management” in the past several months, and that while “[a]ll complaints have been investigated and will continue to be monitored,” many of the allegations Plaintiff had made in these complaints “could not be validated.” ( Id.)

On December 7, 2006, Plaintiff was issued a first written advisory for failure to comply with Sky Chefs' attendance policy, based on...