McCray v. Fed. Express Corp.
| Decision Date | 12 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:17-cv-2918-JPM-cgc |
| Parties | BERYL MCCRAY, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
This employment discrimination case is before the Court on Defendant Federal Express Corporation's (hereinafter "FedEx") Motion for Summary Judgment filed on February 17, 2020. (ECF No. 56.) Defendant moves the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 to grant summary judgment in its favor. (Id.) FedEx contends that, based on the evidence presented, Plaintiff Beryl McCray "cannot state a prima facie case of race, sex, and religion discrimination and retaliation." (Id. at PageID 174.) Additionally, FedEx asserts that Plaintiff cannot prove that FedEx's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions were a pretext for unlawful discrimination. (Id.) Finally, FedEx asserts that Plaintiff cannot obtain punitive damages, back pay or front pay because she cannot prove that she was constructively discharged. (Id.)
McCray filed her Response on March 26, 2020. (ECF No. 61.) McCray asserts that not only has she met her burden to demonstrate a prima facie case of race, gender, and religious discrimination under Title VII, but she also can demonstrate that FedEx's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the disciplinary actions taken against her were a pretext for race, gender, and religious discrimination. (See generally ECF No. 61-1.) Additionally, McCray asserts that she was constructively discharged when she resigned from FedEx. (See id. at PageID 368-70.)
FedEx filed its Reply on April 9, 2020. (ECF No. 62.) FedEx argues (1) that McCray's Response is "void of any admissible evidence highlighting comparators who were treated more favorably by FedEx," (2) that McCray's Response violate the parties' agreement as to the nature of the operative claims in the case and does not comply with the Local Rules, and (3) that McCray cannot establish "but-for" causation with respect to her claims of retaliation. (Id. at PageID 535-39.)
For the reasons set forth below, FedEx's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
The following facts are not disputed for purposes of summary judgment.
Plaintiff Beryl McCray is sixty-one years old. (Scheduling Order, ECF No. 51 at PageID 155.) She is an African American female.1 (ECF No. 61-1 at PageID 366.) McCray was employed as an information agent at the FedEx "Hub" at the Memphis International Airport. (Scheduling Order, ECF No. 51 at PageID 155.) As information agent, McCray ensured the proper check out and return of scanning and portable electronic equipment used by FedEx Hubemployees. (Id.) McCray had several supervisors at FedEx. (Id.) These included Robin Simpson, the manager of the equipment room at the Hub, and Wendy Retherford, one of McCray's immediate supervisors. (Id.)
McCray is an ordained member of the clergy at the Mt. Pisgah Baptist Church and is involved with the church's prison ministry. (McCray Statement of Facts ("McCray SOF"), ECF No. 61-2 at PageID 386.) Through her prison ministry, McCray partners with the Volunteer Services Department and the Chaplain at Shelby County Division of Corrections to provide worship services and other volunteer services to incarcerated women. (Id.; FedEx Statement of Facts ("FedEx SOF"), ECF No. 56-2 at PageID 196.) As part of her faith, McCray believes that the Bible requires her to visit and minister to the incarcerated. (McCray SOF, ECF No. 61-2 at PageID 386; FedEx SOF, ECF No. 56-2 at PageID 197.) McCray's religious beliefs do not require her to perform her prison ministry duties on certain days. (McCray SOF, ECF No. 61-2 at PageID 386; FedEx SOF, ECF No. 56-2 at PageID 197.) According to Bassil G. Brooks, the pastor of her church, McCray and other members of the church may participate in the Church's ministries "when their [personal] schedules allow." (FedEx SOF, ECF No. 56-2 at PageID 197; McCray SOF, ECF No. 61-2 at PageID 386.) The Shelby County correctional facilities where McCray performs her ministry set the schedule for visitation and volunteer services, not members of the church's ministry. (McCray SOF, ECF No. 61-2 at PageID 386; FedEx SOF, ECF No. 61-2 at PageID 197.) Aside from scheduling limitations imposed by the prison facilities, church doctrine did not require McCray to attend or perform her prison ministry on any particular month or on any specific day; she could choose any convenient day to perform her ministries, with the caveat that the prison had control over visitation. (FedEx SOF, ECF No. 56-2 at PageID 197; McCray SOF, ECF No. 61-2 at PageID 386.)
McCray's claims arise out of a series of disciplinary incidents and several leave-time requests dating back to July 2015. (FedEx SOF, ECF No. 56-2 at PageID 198; McCray SOF, ECF No. 61-2 at PageID 387.) On June 15, 2020, McCray spoke with Wendy Retherford to request a personal day on July 2, 2015 to visit her son in Atlanta, Georgia. (FedEx SOF, ECF No. 56-2 at PageID 198; McCray SOF, ECF No. 61-2 at PageID 387.) On June 18, 2015, in an email to McCray, Retherford denied the request. (FedEx SOF, ECF No. 56-2 at PageID 198; ECF No. 61-2 at PageID 387; Deposition of Beryl McCray ("McCray Dep."), ECF No. 56-6 at PageID 309, Exh. 46.) Retherford informed McCray that calling in the night before to inform FedEx of an unauthorized absence from work was "not the proper procedure" and directed McCray to submit an exception request with "documentation as to why you need this day."2 (FedEx SOF, ECF No. 56-2 at PageID 198; McCray SOF, ECF No. 61-2 at PageID 387; ECF No. 56-6 at PageID 309, Exh. 46.)
On June 18, 2015, McCray submitted her exception request to FedEx Hub Senior Manager Frank Olson. (FedEx SOF, ECF No. 56-2 at PageID 198-99; McCray SOF, ECF No. 61-2 at PageID 387.) On June 19, 2015, Olson informed McCray that her request "for an exception to exceed our plan for the maximum number of Information Agents to be scheduled off for the third shift operation" would be denied; the "plan number" only allowed 4 information agents to be off on a single day. (FedEx SOF, ECF No. 56-2 at PageID 199; McCray SOF, ECF No. 61-2 at PageID 387; McCray Dep., ECF No. 56-6 at PageID 307.) McCray called in thenight before to announce her absence and did not appear for work on July 2, 2015. (McCray Dep., ECF No. 56-6 at PageID 308, Suspension Letter, Exh. 45.)
On July 8, 2015, FedEx suspended McCray with pay pending the outcome of its investigation into whether McCray violated FedEx's 2-5 Acceptable Conduct Policy.3 (FedEx SOF, ECF No. 56-2 at PageID 198; McCray SOF, ECF No. 61-2 at PageID 387.) On July 13, 2015, FedEx concluded its investigation and issued a Warning Letter after finding that McCray violated FedEx's Acceptable Conduct Policy.4 (McCray Dep., ECF No. 56-6 at PageID 310, Exh. 47.)
The second leave-time request at issue in this case occurred on or about December 16, 2015. (FedEx SOF, ECF No. 56-2 at PageID 197; McCray SOF, ECF No. 61-2 at PageID 386.) McCray, with support from a letter written by Pastor Bassil Brooks, requested "Sabbatical Leave" from December 28, 2015 to January 18, 2016. (FedEx SOF, ECF No. 56-2 at PageID 197; ECF No. 61-2 at PageID 386.) McCray requested Sabbatical Leave to take time to participate in her church's prison ministry. (McCray Dep., ECF No. 56-6 at PageID 315.) FedEx maintains a Religious Observances policy as part of the The policy allows FedEx employees like McCray to request time off for religious observance. (ECF No. 56-4 at PageID 205.) The policy also provides that "[w]hen religiousobservance is granted, employees may use vacation, floating holidays, personal days, or time off without pay." (Id.)
On December 16, 2015, McCray submitted her religious observance request to Wendy Retherford. (McCray Dep., ECF No. 56-6 at PageID 315, Exh. 55.) Retherford informed McCray via email that all of her "Vacation, Personal, and FH must be exhausted before requesting PNP."5 (Id. at PageID 317, Exh. 56.) Retherford stated, "In addition, I will need to get approval for December 28, 2015, December 31, 2015, and January 18, 2015, this will exceed my planned off limit."6 (Id. at PageID 317-18.) McCray responded by questioning why she had to use her vacation days first when requesting leave, and if the policy on such usage had changed. (McCray Dep., ECF No. 56-6 at PageID 318.) Retherford responded by providing a copy of FedEx's 1-55 Leave of Absence (Personal) Eligibility policy, which left to the discretion of management "[g]ranting of personal leaves without pay." (See id. at PageID 317.)
Retherford reached out to McCray on December 21, 2018 to inform her that her request for leave would "not be considered until [McCray] exhausted all of [her] PTO (paid time off)." (McCray Dep., ECF No. 56-6 at PageID 319, Exh. 57 (emphasis in original).) Retherford indicated that she would be "glad to work with [McCray] on rescheduling [her] vacation and [her] floating holiday for the dates requested," at which point she could resubmit her request. (Id.) Retherford followed up with a second email on December 22, 2015 indicating the same andresponding to McCray's inquiry as to why she had to use all her paid leave days that "personal not paid days are only approved in extenuating circumstances." (Id. at PageID 313, Exh. 53.) On December 24, 2016, FedEx manager Robin Simpson once again informed McCray that she would need to use paid time off before she could request her Sabbatical...
To continue reading
Request your trial