Morris v. Anchor Hocking, LLC
| Decision Date | 19 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:10-cv-1163 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
| Parties | Janet I. Morris Plaintiff, v. Anchor Hocking, LLC Defendant. |
Janet I. Morris Plaintiff,
v.
Anchor Hocking, LLC Defendant.
Case No. 2:10-cv-1163
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Dated: June 19, 2012
This matter is before the court on a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 56(c) filed by defendant Anchor Hocking, LLC (Anchor Hocking). Plaintiff is Janet Morris (Morris), a former employee of Anchor Hocking.
I. Factual Background
Morris's Employment History
Plaintiff Janet Morris began working for Anchor Hocking on July 2nd, 1969. Except for a brief break between 1972 and 1973, she worked for Anchor Hocking continuously until July 30, 2009. (Complaint, Doc. 2 ¶ 1; Morris Dep., Doc. 21 at 6.) She began as a label clerk and was repeatedly promoted. Her ultimate position with the company was Sample Packs Supervisor, a management position in Anchor Hocking's distribution center. (Complaint, Doc. 2 ¶ 1.) She held this position for the last fifteen years of her employment with the defendant. Id. Morris was 58 years old when Anchor Hocking discharged her. Id. She alleges that she was replaced by a younger employee or group of younger employees.1 Id. at 3. Morris asserts that she was discharged out of
Page 2
discrimination for her age. Anchor Hocking claims that she was discharged for the theft of a large amount of glassware that she attempted to sell at her daughter's garage sale.
Morris was discharged on July 30, 2009. Id. She was called into a meeting with her direct supervisor, Ryan Whitfield, who was the manager of the distribution center, and Human Resources Representative Lisa Carr. Id.. In this meeting, Carr told Morris that she was being discharged for stealing Anchor Hocking products and selling them at her daughter's garage sale. Id. Carr gave Morris two choices, she could either resign immediately and return the stolen goods, or Anchor would terminate her and initiate prosecution against her and her daughter the following morning. Id. Morris requested to speak with an attorney before choosing between the two options, but Carr indicated that she needed to choose immediately. Id. She chose to resign and return glassware that was in her possession. Id.
Removal of Glassware From Anchor Hocking and Investigation of Morris
The parties focus extensively on whether Morris improperly removed products from Anchor Hocking premises and whether Anchor Hocking's investigation could reasonably have concluded that Morris stole from her employer. Because the motion is granted on other grounds, the court need not resolve these factual disputes.
The parties agree on the basics of what happened. Morris removed "ware"2 from Anchor Hocking premises which was subsequently offered for sale at Morris's daughter's garage sale. (Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 24 at 7-9; Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 19 at 3-5.) Employees from Anchor Hocking's
Page 3
human resources department learned of the sale and conducted an investigation into Morris's alleged theft of ware. (Doc. 24 at 9-11; Doc. 19 at 5-6.) This investigation ultimately led to Morris's termination. (Doc. 24 at 10-11; Doc. 19 at 6-7.) There are disputed factual issues regarding whether Anchor Hocking had a policy for removal of ware and what that policy was, whether Morris complied with that policy by receiving permission to remove the ware which appeared at her daughter's garage sale, and whether Anchor Hocking's investigation was sufficient to conclude that Morris was guilty of theft and should be discharged.
Morris's Termination
On July 30, 2009, Carr requested that Morris meet her and Whitfield at the Anchor Hocking plant. At the meeting, Carr "provided Janet with two options. No. 1 was for her to voluntarily resign and return the stolen property. No. 2 was that we would involve the authorities and prosecute her for theft if she didn't voluntarily resign." (Carr Dep., Doc. 19 at 13.) According to Morris, after she was presented with these two choices she requested to speak with an attorney, but Carr told her that she had to either sign a letter of resignation immediately or face prosecution the next day. (Complaint, Doc. 2 ¶ 13.) Carr has no memory of Morris requesting to speak to an attorney before making her decision: "She could have. I don't recall. I didn't take notes from that meeting. . . . I don't recall that happening. I'm not going to say it didn't." (Carr Dep., Doc. 19 at 14.) Ultimately, Morris signed a resignation letter at that meeting. Id.
Following her discharge, Whitfield arranged to meet Morris in a Wal-Mart parking lot to receive the remaining glassware that had not been sold at the garage sale. Id. at 15.
Replacement
Two weeks after Morris's discharge, Carr posted a vacancy for the Sample Packs Supervisor
Page 4
position. Id. at 3. The position was never filled. Id. Instead, Morris's assistant, Harriet Clagg, age 67, initially took over all of Morris's responsibilities: "I just took over. Just stepped over. Did her and my work." (Clagg Dep., Doc. 20 at 3.) However, it soon became clear that Clagg alone could not perform both her own duties and all of the work that Morris had done. Id. at 5. In mid-September, one large responsibility that had belonged to Morris, "keying in orders," was passed to a small number of employees in the customer service department. Id. at 4-5. In her complaint, Morris specifically identifies three younger employees who she claims took over her job responsibilities: "Kelly Caine, age 25; Jen MacMacher, age 31; and Sarah G, age 24." (Complaint, Doc. 2 ¶ 14.) Clagg names two customer service employees who took on Morris's keying responsibilities, Kelly and Laurie. (Clagg Dep., Doc. 20 at 5.) There is no dispute that the job of keying in orders was added to the existing responsibilities of employees from the customer service department. (Morris Dep., Doc. 21 at 38; Whitfield Dep., Doc 23 at 9; Carr Dep., Doc. 19 at 3.) Clagg also did some work keying in orders, a job that she estimated had constituted 90 percent of Morris's workload. (Clagg Dep., Doc. 20 at 5.)
Slightly more than a year after Morris's termination, Clagg retired. Id. at 2. The responsibilities that Clagg had inherited from Morris were shifted to a department that was formed by combining the sample pack department with the "dot com venture." (Carr Dep., Doc. 19 at 3.) This internet sales business did not exist while Morris worked at Anchor Hocking. Id.. Anchor Hocking created a new position within the department that consisted of new duties as well as some of the duties that Clagg had inherited from Morris. Id.. at 4. Candace Priddy, the head of the department, hired Carolyn Jones to fill this position. Id. Jones is 48 years old. Id. Jones did not take over any of Morris's former responsibilities until September or October of 2010, after Clagg retired
Page 5
and more than a year after Morris was terminated at the end of July, 2009. (Whitfield Dep., Doc. 23 at 9-10.)
This Action
In January 2010, Morris filed a charge of age and gender discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Complaint, Doc. 2 ¶ 16.) The Commission issued a Right to Sue letter on September 24, 2010. Id. Plaintiff filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial