Hosey v. Enter. Leasing Company-Southeast, LLC

• Decision Date: 17 January 2017
• Docket Number: Civil Action No.: 3:15-cv-3282-JMC-TER
• Citation: Hosey v. Enter. Leasing Co.-Se., LLC, Civil Action No.: 3:15-cv-3282-JMC-TER (D. S.C. Jan 17, 2017)
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: JESSICA S. HOSEY, Plaintiff, v. ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY-SOUTHEAST, LLC, Defendant.

JESSICA S. HOSEY, Plaintiff, v. ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY-SOUTHEAST, LLC, Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 3:15-cv-3282-JMC-TER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION

January 17, 2017

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I.INTRODUCTION

In this employment discrimination case, Plaintiff alleges Defendants discriminated against her based on her race and sex and subjected her sexual harassment, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)etseq.Presently before the court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment(Document # 30).All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B)andLocalRule 73.02(B)(2)(g), DSC.This report and recommendation is entered for review by the district judge.

II.FACTS¹

A.PlaintiffHired by Enterprise's Charlotte Branch

On July 20, 2009, Enterprise's Charlotte Branch hired Plaintiff, an African-American female, to a management assistant position in its car rental division.Pl. Dep. 43:19-44:22 (Ex. A to Def. Motion).Plaintiff's duties and responsibilities in the Charlotte Branch's rental division included renting vehicles, customer service, selling insurance, and completing damage waivers.Pl.Dep. 46:20-25.Upon her hire, Enterprise trained Plaintiff on the company's sales practices, policies, and procedures.Pl. Dep. 54:3-55:25.The area sales manager was available on a weekly basis to train Plaintiff as needed.Pl.Dep. 56:12-57:3.Enterprise provided Plaintiff with its policies and procedures, including its Personnel Manual and sexual harassment policy.Policies Acknowledgment (Ex. B to Def. Motion); Sexual Harassment Policy (Ex. C. to Def. Motion).Plaintiff acknowledged that she was an at-will employee and that either she or Enterprise could "end the relationship at any time, with or without cause and with or without notice."Policies Acknowledgment;Pl.Dep. 58:16-24.

Enterprise conducts 30-day and 90-day reviews of its newly-hired management assistants. 30-day Review (Ex. D to Def. Motion); 90-day Review (Ex. E to Def. Motion).While Plaintiff's30-day review was generally positive, her 90-day review reflected lagging sales and other performance problems.Id.On January 11, 2010, Enterprise's management met with Plaintiff to address her deficient performance and sales.Email: Plaintiff's Sales (Ex. F to Def. Motion).Nevertheless, in her July 23, 2010 annual review, Enterprise noted 12 separate areas that "Requires Improvement."July 23, 2010 Review(Ex. G to Def. Motion).On August 3, 2010, Enterprise issued a written warning to Plaintiff for failure to meet her minimum sales expectations.Written Warning (Ex. H to Def. Motion).Enterprise warned Plaintiff that "this past month you did not meet these minimum expectations as your combined sales pkg was 58%.Next month [if] you fall under the 60% requirement again, you will be terminated."Id.Plaintiff received and signed the warning.Id.After the written warning, Plaintiff's performance did improve somewhat, although her August 2011 review still had three "Requires Improvement."July 20, 2011 Review(Ex. I to Def. Motion).

B.Plaintiff Transfers to Columbia Branch

In October 2011, Plaintiff requested a transfer to Enterprise's Columbia Branch.Pl.Dep. 100:6-10.The Columbia Branch accepted the transfer, and Plaintiff moved to Columbia to work in the same position that she held in Charlotte: a management assistant in the rental division. Pl. Dep. 100:18-25.Although the Columbia Branch had different sales goals for corporate accounts, a different call back and system for working corporate accounts, Plaintiff's duties and responsibilities were "pretty much" the same in Columbia as they were in Charlotte.Pl.Dep. 101:21-25; 103:16-24.Plaintiff continued to work in the Columbia Branch's rental division for approximately six months.Pl.Dep. 111:7-10.

C.Plaintiff Takes Account Executive Position

In April 2012, Plaintiff's supervisor in the rental division recommended to her that she apply for a position as an account executive with Enterprise.Id.;Pl.Dep. 129:16-18.An account executivediffered from a management assistant in that account executives were responsible for selling vehicles, while management assistants were responsible for renting vehicles.Pl.Dep. 128:17-25.Plaintiff interviewed for the account executive position with Jarrett Harrelson, the Columbia Branch's Group Car Sales Manager.Pl.Dep. 131:4-15.Mr. Harrelson offered and Plaintiff accepted a position as an account executive.Pl.Dep. 131:18-25.

In May 2012, shortly after she accepted the account executive position, Enterprise sent Plaintiff to corporate headquarters in St. Louis for training.Pl.Dep. 122:1-123:6.Enterprise's account executives nationwide all receive sales training at corporate headquarters.Pl.Dep. 124:14-16.Upon her return to Columbia, Enterprise provided additional training to Plaintiff, personally and through computer-based training modules.Pl.Dep. 127:2-19; Training Certificate (Ex. K to Def. Motion).Enterprise also informed Plaintiff about its sales expectations.Sales Expectations (Ex. L to Def. Motion).Account executives were required to: "Maintain a 8 car delivery average per month for a 12 month [Account Executive] tenure; 5 car delivery average per month for an [Account Executive] with 6-11 months tenure."Id.(emphasis in original).Enterprise further advised Plaintiff of the consequences should she fail to meet the sales expectations:

THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS ARE A MINIMUM TO MAINTAIN YOUR CAREER PATH WITH ENTERPRISE CAR SALES.IT WILL TAKE A GREAT ATTITUDE AND DEDICATION TO MAINTAIN THE ABOVE.FAILURE TO MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS WILL SUBJECT YOU TO ACTION UP TO AND INCLUDING TERMINATION.YOU CAN USE THIS AS A DAILY TO DO LIST TO BE SUCCESSFUL.

Id.(emphasis in original).Plaintiff signed the document, acknowledging receipt and understanding of Enterprise's sales expectations, including that she would be subject to termination if she failed to meet the sales goals.Id.;Pl.Dep. 136:12-139:25.The Columbia Branch maintained a board witha running tally of all car sales so each account executive always knew how many cars they sold, and how many they needed to sell, to meet the monthly sales expectation.Pl.Dep. 135:12-136:8.

D.Plaintiff's Performance

Within a few months after Plaintiff moved to the account executive position in the Columbia Branch's car sales division, Enterprise began to experience problems with her performance.Plaintiff's immediate supervisor was Maurice Campbell, an African-American male.Pl.Dep. 148:24-150:16.On July 16, 2012, Mr. Campbell issued a written warning to Plaintiff for failing to be on time to the July staff meeting: "The message was clear in the June staff meeting that we needed everyone on time and ready to go with all appropriate information.We do these meetings once a month and it is vital that you are present and on time."Written Warning (Ex. M to Def. Motion).Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the written warning.Pl.Dep. 148:18-21.

On July 12, 2012, Enterprise issued a memorandum to all account executives advising them of the sales expectations for the Columbia Branch.Each account executive acknowledged:

I understand that the Enterprise Car Sales Division expectation is to sell 10 cars every month.

I understand that if my 3-month sales average falls below the corporate average, (currently at 8 deliveries or 24 total deliveries based on a 3 month roll), I will be placed on probation.

Failure to maintain a 3-month rolling average of 8 deliveries or 24 deliveries will result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.

Requires improvement- 7 or below

Meets Requirement- 8-10

Exceeds Requirement- 11-14

Outstanding- 15 and above

Sales Performance Memorandum (Ex. N to Def. Motion).Plaintiff signed Enterprise's written sales expectations and initialed each paragraph separately.Id.

At the end of July 2012, Mr. Campbell conducted Plaintiff's performance review for her first three months as an account executive.July 2012 Review (Ex. O to Def. Motion);Pl.Dep. 154:9-21.Overall, Plaintiff received a "Meets Expectations" for this first review.Id.However, Mr. Campbell warned Plaintiff that she"Requires Improvement" because she averaged only 2.2 cars per month, five fewer than the expectation.Id.;Pl.Dep. 155:5-11.Mr. Campbell noted:

Jessica, you are a Requires Improvement on this section.Your 2.2 Average over a 3 month period is unacceptable.With that being said, I know with the addition of accounts and with more training and coaching we can get you to the average of 7+ cars a month.

Id.Mr. Campbell also warned Plaintiff about her continued tardiness:

You require improvement when it comes to punctuality.You are consistently 5-10 minutes late weekly and have been 20+ minutes late for the past two monthly meetings.

Id.Mr. Campbell also rated Plaintiff as "Requires Improvement" in 14 other areas, including attitude and initiative, business development, sales process, goal setting, time management, and communication.Id.Mr. Campbell outlined goals for Plaintiff to increase her sales from 2.2 vehicles per month to over 7 vehicles per month.Id.

In the comments section of her review, Plaintiff was enthusiastic and complimentary of the car sales division team: "The past 3 months as an AE has been AWESOME![The Columbia Branch] has an amazing team and I am glad to be a part of it.I love the aspect of meeting new people and also learning new things."Id.Plaintiff wrote the account executive position was a "great fit" and the "sky is the limit!"Id.

Plaintiff again expressed her excitement and support for the car sales team in the Columbia Branch.In November 2012, Enterprise was interviewing internal candidates for an Assistant Manager position.Pl.Dep. 163:5-23.Enterprise asked Columbia Branch employees for feedbackon...