Lee v. UMB Bank N.A.
| Decision Date | 02 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:19 CV 1530 RWS |
| Parties | TRACY LEE, Plaintiff, v. UMB BANK NA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Plaintiff Tracy Lee worked as a bank teller and transaction specialist for defendant UMB Bank from 1997 until her termination in May of 2015. In her complaint, Lee alleges that she was terminated because of her race, African-American, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.1 Although initially represented by counsel, Lee now appears in this action pro se.2 Before the Court is UMB Bank's motion for summary judgment. Lee has filed an opposition to summary judgment,and the motion is now ripe for disposition. Because the undisputed facts demonstrate that UMB Bank is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the bank's motion for summary judgment will be granted for the reasons set out below.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Lynn v. Deaconess Medical Center, 160 F.3d 484, 486 (8th Cir. 1998)(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ). The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis of its motion and identifying those portions of the affidavits, pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file which it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). When such a motion is made and supported by the movant, the nonmoving party may not rest on her pleadings but must produce sufficient evidence to support the existence of the essential elements of her case on which she bears the burden of proof. Id. at 324. In resisting a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff has an affirmative burden to designate specific facts creating a triable controversy. Crossley v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 355 F.3d 1112, 1113 (8th Cir. 2004).
The non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). "They must show there is sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict in their favor." Nat'l Bank of Comm. v. Dow Chem. Co., 165 F.3d 602, 607 (8th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). "A case founded on speculation or suspicion is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment." Id. at 610 (citing Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d 621, 625 (8th Cir. 1985)). "When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
Plaintiff Tracy Lee began working for defendant UMB Bank as a bank teller in 1997. In 2012, she transferred to the bank's Ferguson, Missouri branch to work as a transaction specialist. Her supervisor was Margaret Shacklady, a Caucasian female. In August of 2014, there was protest activity in Ferguson around the bank's Ferguson branch. Lee contacted the bank's human resources department complaining of a comment allegedly made by one of her fellow co-workers, an African-American female. According to Lee, her co-worker saw the protestorsoutside the bank and asked, "Which one of them is drunk?" Lee testified that her co-worker made no comments regarding the race of any of the protestors and that the protestors included Caucasians as well as African-Americans. Lee claimed she was offended at the insinuation that the protestors were drunk. UMB Bank investigated Lee's complaint and found that there was no discrimination or harassment. However, to address Lee's complaint, in September of 2014 UMB Bank conducted a training presentation entitled "Building Bridges to Understanding" to discuss the events in Ferguson.
In November of 2014 Lee moved to UMB Bank's branch in Brentwood, Missouri. Her job remained transaction specialist Lee's supervisors at the Brentwood location were Kewana Regans, an African-American female, and Leonor Mercado, an Hispanic female. Lee had not previously worked for or with either of these women. As a transaction specialist, Lee's job duties included handling transactions such as check cashing, deposits, consigned items, savings bonds, and loan payments, as well as generating sales referrals, also known as Qualified Introductions (QIs), by inquiring with and educating customers about the bank's products. Lee was required to meet certain QI goals recorded in a monthly scorecard, which was reviewed with transaction specialists each month. Lee was informed and understood that she was required to meet those scorecard goals, including generating QIs, beginning in January of 2015 and going forward.
Lee failed to meet any of her monthly scorecard goals during her entire tenure at the Brentwood location.3 Lee received numerous warnings, both verbal and written, about her failure to meet expectations on numerous occasions and was offered assistance by both Mercado and Regans to achieve her scorecard goals, but she declined their offers. Lee was specifically warned verbally and in writing that her failure to meet performance expectations could result in the termination of her employment. On March 13, 2015, Lee received a verbal warning from Mercado for failing to meet her performance expectations. This verbal warning was memorialized in writing and appears in the record as Document 49-7. This verbal warning details numerous mistakes made by Lee and reminds her of previous coaching she received in February for failing to secure her teller drawer and for failing to meet her scorecard goals for January and February. (Doc. 49-7). Lee signed this document and by doing so acknowledged that her failure to improve performance could result in termination. (Doc. 49-7). Following this warning, Lee was offered assistance by Mercado and Regans, which Lee admittedly declined. (Doc. 49-2 at 34). On April 6, 2015, Lee received a written warning from Mercado for her continued failure to meet performance expectations, including her failure to meet her scorecard goals for March. (Doc. 49-8). Lee signed this document,again acknowledging that her continued failure to improve performance could result in her termination. (Doc. 49-8). Finally, on May 11, 2015, Regans and Mercado met with Lee and informed her that once again she did not meet her scorecard goals. Lee was shown her scorecard and reminded of her verbal and written warnings. Regans and Mercado then terminated Tracy Lee's employment. (Doc. 49-9).
Lee's complaint alleges that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race because she was terminated for not meeting her scorecard goals while similarly situated Caucasian employees were not fired for failing to meet performance goals. Lee's complaint does not name any similarly-situated Caucasian employees. In her deposition, Lee stated that she did not believe she was discriminated against on the basis of her race by UMB Bank. (Doc. 49-1 at 4-5, 16, 16 and Doc. 49-2 at 22, 23, 35). Instead, she stated that she was terminated in retaliation for her complaint about the Ferguson protestors in 2014. (Doc. 49-1 at 4) ("To my understanding, the claim that I'm bringing is retaliation."). Lee's complaint does not state a claim for retaliation. It is undisputed that Mercado and Regans made the decision to terminate plaintiff's employment and that they had no knowledge of Lee's prior complaint about the Ferguson protestors when they made the decision to terminate her. (Doc. 49-6 at 4). In her deposition, Lee admitted that neither Mercado nor Regans ever retaliated against her. (Doc. 49-2 at 22).Lee named one Caucasian employee, Heather Feltes, who worked with her at the Brentwood branch who told her that she did not meet her scorecard goals for the month of April, but was not terminated. (Doc. 49-2 at 30-31). Lee has no knowledge whether Feltes ever received any verbal or written warnings for her failure to meet scorecard goals, nor does Lee know whether Feltes ever failed to meet any of her other scorecard goals. (Doc. 49-2 at 31). Lee could not identify any other similarly-situated employees who were not terminated for failing to meet performance expectations.
In her opposition to summary judgment, Lee admits that she "stated under oath that I did not believe that I was discriminated against by my former employer . . . however, I do believe that I have experienced practices by my former employer . . . ." (Doc. 53 at 2). Lee then goes on to claim that Shacklady, her previous supervisor at the Ferguson branch, "did not follow the management guidelines" but was not terminated. (Doc. 53 at 2). According to Lee, Shacklady did not perform her job because she did not "create[e] an environment where [Lee] could thrive in [her] role . . . ." (Doc. 53 at 6). Lee then goes on to describe conversations she allegedly had with UMB Bank employees long after she was terminated that she claims supports her version of events.4 Lee also argues that her termination waspretextual because she never met any of her scorecard goals "the entire time" she was employed by UMB Bank but that she was not terminated until 2015. (Doc. # 53 at 3). She also reiterates her allegation that she was terminated because of her complaint about protestors at the Ferguson branch.
Tracy Lee's § 1981 race discrimination claim is analyzed under the same standards applicable to race discrimination claims brought under Title VII. Stone v. McGraw Hill Financial, Inc., 856 F.3d 1168, 1173 n.4 (8th Cir. 2017). Where, as here, there is no direct evidence of discrimination, co...
To continue reading
Request your trial