Minnis v. McDonnell Douglas Technical Services Co.
| Decision Date | 27 September 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-CV-73336-DT.,No. 99-CV-70252-DT.,99-CV-70252-DT.,00-CV-73336-DT. |
| Citation | 162 F.Supp.2d 718 |
| Parties | Roy MINNIS, Plaintiff, v. McDONNELL DOUGLAS TECHNICAL SERVICES CO., Defendant, and Roy Minnis, Plaintiff, v. Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Timothy G. Hagan, St. Clair Shores, MI, for plaintiff.
Joi M. Cunningham, Patrick F. Hickey, Detroit, MI, for defendant.
Plaintiff Roy Minnis, a black male, is a former contract employee of McDonnell Douglas Technical Services Company ("MDTSC"). MDTSC is a company engaged in the business of providing temporary technical services to its clients by providing them on an "as needed basis" with a temporary workforce. One of MDTSC's clients is Caterpillar Corporation. In March 1999, Plaintiff Roy Minnis, as an MDTSC contract employee, was placed at Caterpillar's Mt. Clemens, Michigan facility, to serve as "Site Coordinator." As Site Coordinator, Plaintiff had responsibility for all MDTSC employees assigned to that facility. Plaintiff's employment with MDTSC was terminated in August 1999 after a female employee complained about sexual harassment by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff subsequently filed the above-captioned separate actions against McDonnell Douglas and Caterpillar, respectively, alleging that he was discharged because of his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and in violation of the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. He also alleges that MDTSC and Caterpillar retaliated against him in violation of both the federal and state statutes because he opposed certain practices which he believed were discriminatory. He further claims that his MDTSC supervisors and supervisory Caterpillar personnel defamed him by telling MDTSC officials that he was guilty of sexual harassment. Plaintiff's separately filed Complaints were subsequently consolidated for all pre-trial purposes and for trial.
The consolidated cases are now before the Court on MDTSC's and Caterpillar's separately-filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff has responded to both motions, to which responses Defendants have replied. The Court heard the oral arguments of counsel on April 26, 2001, and at the conclusion of the hearing, the Court directed the parties to file supplemental briefs on Plaintiff's defamation claim. The parties have complied with the Court's directive.
Having had the opportunity to review and consider the parties' respective briefs and supporting documents, as well as the oral arguments of counsel, the Court is now prepared to rule on Defendants' motions. This Opinion and Order sets forth the Court's ruling.
Plaintiff Roy Minnis was first hired by MDTSC as an at-will contract employee in 1995. At that time, Plaintiff entered into the first of a series of Contract Labor Employment Agreements with MDTSC to provide "temporary technical services" to MDTSC's clients. Pursuant to these temporary employment agreements, Plaintiff was first placed at Caterpillar Corporation's Aurora, Illinois facility, and then later, at Caterpillar's Peoria, Illinois facility. Once Caterpillar no longer had a need for a temporary workforce at its Aurora and Peoria facilities, Plaintiff's initial Contract Labor Agreement with MDTSC was terminated. During this initial temporary employment with MDTSC, Plaintiff developed a favorable working relationship with his supervisor, Rick Vogel, and with a Caterpillar manager named Skip Dillin.
Plaintiff thereafter went to work as a truck driver for U.S. Express until he received an offer to return to work for MDTSC again as a temporary contract employee at McDonnell Douglas's facility in St. Louis, Missouri. Following the completion of this temporary assignment, Plaintiff was offered and accepted a position as a recruiter for MDTSC. As a recruiter, Plaintiff recruited potential temporary employees for placement at various client sites. Plaintiff resigned from the recruiter position in 1997 and went to work for AT & T Wireless and then for Clearwater Transportation.
In March of 1999, however, Plaintiff was again recruited by Rick Vogel of MDTSC to return to work as an MDTSC temporary contract employee to serve as Site Coordinator at Caterpillar's Mt. Clemens, Michigan facility. Vogel recruited Plaintiff for the position based upon their past working relationship, and based upon Plaintiff's past work with Skip Dillin of Caterpillar, who was then the plant manager at the Mt. Clemens facility.1 Mr. Dillin had had a favorable experience working with Plaintiff in Peoria, Illinois and wanted him to work at the Mt. Clemens facility.
As an MDTSC contract employee, Plaintiff was required to abide by the terms of MDTSC's Policy Against Sexual Harassment, which prohibits any type of sexual harassment, including,
verbal conduct such as making derogatory comments, slurs, jokes, unwanted sexual advances or propositions; visual conduct such as leering, making sexual gestures, displaying sexually suggestive objects, pictures, cartoons, or posters; or physical conduct such as touching, assaulting, impeding, or blocking movements.
[Defendant MDTSC's Ex. D.]
In addition, Plaintiff's Contract Labor Employment Agreement provided that Plaintiff would comply with all rules, policies and procedures of Caterpillar. [See Contract Labor Employment Agreement, Defendant MDTSC's Ex. C.]2 Caterpillar also had a Sexual Harassment Policy prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace. [See Defendant Caterpillar's Ex. D.]3
As indicated, Plaintiff's position at the Caterpillar Mt. Clemens facility was that of Site Coordinator. He was the highest ranking MDTSC representative on the job site and, as the Site Coordinator, Plaintiff had on site responsibility for all MDTSC employees. Plaintiff admitted in his deposition that that responsibility included the administration and enforcement of all MDTSC policies, including the company's policy against sexual harassment. He further admitted that he also had to abide by those policies, and as Site Coordinator, had to avoid even the appearance of inappropriate conduct. [Plaintiff's Dep., Defendant's Ex. A, pp. 36-38.] Plaintiff admitted that the MDTSC anti-sexual harassment policy precluded sexual banter, making sexual advances towards employees, sexual solicitation of employees and engaging in sexual relations with subordinate employees. Id.
Plaintiff testified that he supervised approximately 100 to 125 employees at the Mt. Clemens facility. Of these, approximately 80-90 percent were minorities and included African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians and Middle Easterns. The vast majority, however, were African-Americans.
In June 1999, Tracy Quinn, the MDTSC Account Manager assigned to the Caterpillar account, began receiving reports from MDTSC recruiters that employees they had recruited and placed at Caterpillar's Mt. Clemens facility were complaining that the MDTSC management team at the Mt. Clemens site were intimidating employees and that sexual favors were being requested for work and promotion. Ms. Quinn reported this to Rick Vogel, and at his request, she tried to find out more from people on site. Quinn testified however that her investigation was unable to confirm any specific instances of misconduct; rather, all that the employees told her was of having heard rumors that supervisors were having sexual relations with subordinates. Mr. Vogel then met with Skip Dillin of Caterpillar who similarly indicated that he had heard rumors, but had no confirmed report of misconduct. Even though he had nothing to act upon but rumors, Vogel spoke with Plaintiff Minnis and told him to "clean this up."
Approximately a month later, Vogel again began receiving complaints from recruiters that employees were again complaining about inappropriate conduct at the Mt. Clemens facility. Vogel then met with Plaintiff and Plaintiff's first level supervisor, Raleigh Hokes, in St. Louis and advised them of complaints of sexual harassment that had been received and that, if they were true, would be grounds for termination.4 Upon his return to Mt. Clemens, Plaintiff gathered all of the employees for a meeting and told them he did not want to hear anything more about sexual relations between employees.
On August 10, 1999, Skip Dillin of Caterpillar was approached by Darrin Gides, the fiancé of an MDTSC employee, Michelle Savage who informed Mr. Dillin that Ms. Savage refused to return to work because of sexual harassment by Plaintiff Minnis and George Skerbich, a Caterpillar employee. Gides said that Ms. Savage was told by Mr. Minnis that she should go to bed with him and if she did not, that he would fire her from the custodian position she held at the facility. Gides also said that George Skerbich had made sexual remarks to Ms. Savage and pulled her hair. Dillin subsequently contacted Georgeann Fischer, Caterpillar's Human Resources representative, and Bob Williams, his supervisor, in order to determine how to proceed. Upon their instructions, Dillin confronted George Skerbich, who was a white male employed by Caterpillar, and Skerbich admitted having made the comments complained of by Michelle Savage (i.e., "together we're horny because you're a honey and I'm ornery") and having touched her without her consent (i.e., pulled her pig tails). Dillin immediately fired Skerbich for violating Caterpillar's sexual harassment policy.
With respect to Plaintiff, Dillin and his supervisor, Bob Williams, called Rick Vogel and advised him of the allegations made by Ms. Savage and her boyfriend. According to Vogel, Dillin and/or Williams wanted Plaintiff immediately removed from the Mt. Clemens facility.5
After receiving the phone call from Dillin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yanowitz v. L'Oreal Usa, Inc.
.... . ., a plaintiff must make an overt stand against suspected illegal discriminatory action." (Minnis v. McDonnell Douglas Technical Services Co. (E.D.Mich.2001) 162 F.Supp.2d 718, 739, italics added, citing Booker; see also Maynard v. City of San Jose (9th Cir.1994) 37 F.3d 1396, 1405 [evi......
-
Yanowitz v. L'Oreal Usa, Inc.
.... . ., a plaintiff must make an overt stand against suspected illegal discriminatory action." (Minnis v. McDonnell Douglas Technical Services Co. (E.D.Mich.2001) 162 F.Supp.2d 718, 739, italics added, citing Booker; see also Maynard v. City of San Jose (9th Cir. 1994) 37 F.3d 1396, 1405 [ev......
-
Murphy v. Marshall Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
...Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 152, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984); Graham-Humphreys, 209 F.3d at 557; Minnis v. McDonnell Douglas Technical Servs. Co., 162 F.Supp.2d 718, 729 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Typically, equitable tolling is available only when a litigant's failure to meet a legally-mandated......
-
Bilyeu v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 3:09-0909
...Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 152, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984); Graham-Humphreys, 209 F.3d at 557; Minnis v. McDonnell Douglas Technical Servs. Co., 162 F.Supp.2d 718, 729 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Typically, equitable tolling is available only when a litigant's failure to meet alegally-mandated ......