Horton v. Amerway, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-00112
| Decision Date | 19 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-00112 |
| Parties | KAREN E. HORTON, Plaintiff, v. AMERWAY, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 38), which Plaintiff opposes. For the reasons that follow, the Court will DENY Defendant's motion.
The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367, and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
This case arises out of Plaintiff, Karen E. Horton's ("Horton"), allegations that her employment with Defendant was terminated in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 1). Plaintiff claims she was terminated for her refusal to engage in a protected activity under the Act. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 15-16).
Defendant, Amerway, Inc. ("Amerway), is a family-owned company headquartered and based out of Altoona, Pennsylvania. (Doc. No. 42-1 at ¶ 2). The company is closely held by Gerry Buck, Terry Buck, and Laura Link. (Doc. No. 42-5 at 5-6). Terry Buck and Laura Link are Gerry Buck's son and daughter, respectively. (Id.). Amerway currently employs 20 full-time workers and 3 part-time workers. (Doc. No. 42-1 at ¶ 3). Gerry Buck resides in California. (Doc. No. 42-2 at 18). Defendant maintains that Gerry Buck does not "participate extensively in managing the Company's day-to-day operations." (Doc. Nos. 43 at ¶ 3; 42-2 at 11-12). Rather, Terry Buck was responsible for day-to-day operations, including acting as general manager and plant manager, as well as performing various duties including purchasing, procurement, sales, personnel hiring, personnel training, and other responsibilities. (Doc. Nos. 42-1 at ¶ 4; 42-2 at 3-7). Horton, however, contends that Gerry Buck had a more hands-on approach, and that when he would be in Pennsylvania, Gerry Buck "took over much of Terry Buck's job, including day-to-day operations." (Doc. No. 54-1 at ¶ 17).
Plaintiff was hired as an at-will employee on February 25, 2008. (Doc. No. 42-3 at 5). According to Defendant, because of a financially strong year in 2007, Plaintiff was hired to assist Terry Buck with various projects and administrative duties. (Doc. No. 42-1 at ¶ 5). Plaintiff maintains that her hiring was done in response to the departure of the previous purchasing agent, and a backlog of work due to Terry Buck's inability to manage the workload alone. (Doc. No. 54-1 at ¶¶ 4, 6). Defendant states that Plaintiff's job was mostly clerical, primarily assisting Terry Buck with research and other administrative projects and miscellaneous tasks, along with providing other assistance as needed. (Doc. No. 42-6 at 4-8). Plaintiff has asserted that her job responsibilities primarily involved purchasing, inventory, "everything encompassed under procurement," and providing other assistance as needed. (Doc. Nos. 48-1 at 32; 54-5 at 1-2).
It is undisputed that Amerway had issues with frequent employee turnover and poor employee attendance. (Doc. No. 42-6 at 11). According to Defendant, to combat the issue, Gerry Buck approached Plaintiff to search for employees who could be hired full-time. (Doc. Nos. 42-6 at 13-15). Defendant advances that the request was only general, with no grant of hiring authority or commitment to new hires at all. (Doc. No. 42-5 at 16-17). Plaintiff agrees that Gerry Buck approached her to research hiring more workers; however, Plaintiff avers that Gerry requested "Mexican" workers, because he believed Mexicans were "good workers" and "never miss work." (Doc. No. 48-1 at 48-49). Plaintiff believed that the conversation was serious, and that Gerry Buck was expecting progress reports. (Doc. No. 48-1 at 49).
While in California, Gerry was impressed with the work ethic of day laborers he saw. (Doc. No. 42-5 at 15). Defendant argues that it was for this purpose that he made the request to Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 42-5 at 15). Defendant maintains that Gerry Buck used "Latino" and "day workers" interchangeably based on his personal experience in California, and that what he was intending to convey was a search for reliable employees. (Doc. Nos. 42-5 at 10; 42-6 at 15). However, Plaintiff argues that Gerry Buck specifically asked for "Mexicans" and that Gerry understood day workers to "encompass all Latinos." (Doc. Nos. 48-1 at 48-49; 50-1 at 37-38).
At Gerry Buck's request, Plaintiff contacted an outside agency, Manpower, on October 22, 2009, seeking "legal immigrants, preferred Mexicans." (Doc. No. 48-1 at 56). As Plaintiff noted in an October 22, 2009 email to Gerry Buck sent just before 11:30 a.m., Manpower informed Plaintiff that preference due to national origin or race opened the possibility of a lawsuit. (Doc. No. 54-2 at 1). She also sent this email to Terry Buck the same day at 12:40 p.m.; however Terry Buck asserts that he did not read the email. (Doc. No. 42-2 at 8-9). Plaintiff counters, though, that Terry Buck did indeed read her email, and responded to her on October 22,saying (Doc. No. 49-1 at 41). Gerry Buck responded the next day, October 23, 2009, to Plaintiff's email, and told her that he did not want to do anything illegal. (Doc. No. 54-2 at 1).
Plaintiff was terminated on October 26, 2009, 4 days after the email exchange with Gerry Buck. (Doc. No. 48-1 at 73). After a prosperous 2007 and early 2008, Defendant alleges that business began to decline in late 2008, in tandem with the souring of the U.S. economy in general. (Doc. Nos. 42-1 at ¶ 6; 43 at ¶ 8). Defendant states that this downturn caused Gerry and Terry Buck to consider reducing the workforce, including employees Carl Betsinger and David McConnel, in addition to an IT position. (Doc. No. 42-1 at ¶ 8). Defendant avers this reduction in workforce came to include Plaintiff, since Terry Buck could absorb her job responsibilities, and could not replicate the skills of the IT position. (Doc. No. 42-2 at 12). Defendant maintains that Terry Buck was solely responsible for the personnel decisions, and made the decision in September 2009, but delayed it due to it being "unpleasant." (Doc. Nos. 42-1 at ¶ 11; 42-2 at 10-11, 14-15).
Plaintiff maintains that the timing concerning when Terry and Gerry Buck began discussing a reduction in the workforce is inconsistent in the record. (Doc. Nos. 54-7 at 2; 54-9 at 1). They point to facts indicating that Gerry began advocating a workforce reduction starting in December 2008, as based upon the position statement given to the EEOC. (Doc. No. 54-9 at 1). Supplemental information provided to the EEOC, however, states the initial proposal to eliminate Plaintiff's position was made in late August or September 2009. (Doc. No. 54-7 at 2). Further, Plaintiff contends that Terry Buck did not absorb her work, which was pushed to Christine Davis. (Doc. No. 54-9 at 2-3). Plaintiff further disputes that other workers were laidoff. (Doc. No. 54-8 at 1). Plaintiff also disputes that Terry Buck was solely in charge of making the determination to terminate her employment, and that in fact, Gerry Buck made the final decision after the October 21-23, 2009 email exchange, and subsequently informed Terry Buck that Terry should carry out her termination. (Doc. No. 48-1 at 74).
Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 38) along with its supporting memoranda (Doc. No. 39), concise statement of material facts ("CSMF") (Doc. No. 40), and accompanying appendix of exhibits (Doc. No. 42). Plaintiff responded by filing an opposing memoranda , responsive CSMF (45), counter statement of facts (Doc. No. 46), and accompanying appendix of exhibits (Doc. Nos. 48-54), to which Defendant filed a reply (Doc. No. 55) and response to Plaintiff's counter statement of facts (Doc. No. 56). This motion has been fully briefed and is now ripe for disposition.
"Summary judgment is appropriate only where, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact . . . and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Melrose, Inc. v. Pittsburgh, 613 F.3d 380, 387 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Ruehl v. Viacom, Inc., 500 F.3d 375, 380 n.6 (3d Cir. 2007)); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (a).1 Issues of fact are genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); see also McGreevy v. Stroup, 413 F.3d 359, 363 (3d Cir. 2005). Material facts are those which will affect the outcome of the trial under governing law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
The moving party bears the initial responsibility of stating the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the moving party meets this burden, the party opposing summary judgment, "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the . . . pleading," but, "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Saldana v. Kmart Corp., 260 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); see also Podobnik v. U.S. Postal Serv., 409 F.3d 584, 594 (3d Cir. 2005) () (internal quotation marks omitted).
Amerway argues that summary judgment against Horton is appropriate in this case because, under...
To continue reading
Request your trial