Patterson v. Best Buy Co.

• Decision Date: 20 January 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:13-cv-49
• Parties: ROSSILLEE PATTERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BEST BUY CO., INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

ROSSILLEE PATTERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BEST BUY CO., INC., Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-49

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

January 20, 2015

Judge Timothy S. Black

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL CLAIMS ASSERTED BY PLAINTIFF CHONDA BETTS (Doc. 41)

This civil action is before the Court on Defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims asserted by Chonda Betts (Doc. 41) and the parties' responsive memoranda (Docs. 60, 99).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a supervisor at Best Buy Store 153 on East Kemper Road in Cincinnati (hereinafter "Tri-County"). (Doc. 87 at 71). In 2013, after being employed by Best Buy for over ten years, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit. Plaintiff alleges that Best Buy discriminated against her on the basis of race for failing to give her appropriate pay increases, training, and promotions.¹

II. UNDISPUTED FACTS²

1. Best Buy is a well-known consumer electronics retailer with stores located throughout the United States. (Doc. 41, Ex. 2 at ¶ 2).

2. In Greater Cincinnati, Best Buy currently operates five retail locations. (Doc. 41, Ex. 2 at ¶ 2).

3. Plaintiff is a current Best Buy employee at the Tri-County store. (Doc. 87 at 71).

4. Plaintiff began her employment with Best Buy in 2003. (Doc. 87 at 65).

5. Due to her eleven years of employment with Best Buy, Plaintiff admits that she is familiar with Best Buy's policies and procedures. (Doc. 87 at 76).

6. Plaintiff is aware that Best Buy's policies are posted online and in the break room at each Best Buy store. (Doc. 87 at 77).

7. Plaintiff is familiar with Best Buy's hotline phone number to report employee issues, including discrimination and harassment. (Doc. 87 at 77-78).

8. During her long tenure with Best Buy, Plaintiff has utilized the hotline phone number on two occasions. (Doc. 87 at 78-79, Ex. 8).

9. In addition to the hotline phone number, Plaintiff understood that she could bring complaints directly to her managers and the Best Buy human resources department. (Doc. 87 at 134).

10. Although Plaintiff did present complaints to Best Buy during her employment, she admits that none of these complaints addressed alleged harassment or discrimination. (Doc. 87 at 134-135, Ex. 8).

11. During her employment, Plaintiff has never had any race-based comments directed toward her. (Doc. 87 at 90-92).

12. The one comment that Plaintiff objected to was a comment from a General Manager regarding another Best Buy employee. (Doc. 87 at 92).

13. The alleged comment was that the General Manager wanted to beat the employee "like a piñata." (Doc. 87 at 92).

14. Plaintiff did not report the comment. (Doc. 87 at 92-93).

15. Plaintiff began her employment with Best Buy in 2003 as a cashier. (Doc. 87 at 65).

16. Her initial rate of pay with Best Buy was $10.50. (Doc. 41, Ex. 2 at ¶ 4).

17. Plaintiff next held the position of Customer Service Representative. (Doc. 87 at 66).

18. Since 2009, although her title has changed due to reorganizations, Plaintiff's role at Tri-County has been Front End Supervisor. (Doc. 87 at 65).

19. From 2003 to the present, Plaintiff has remained at Tri-County. (Doc. 87 at 65).

20. As of August 2012, one month prior to the date that Plaintiff filed her charge of discrimination (Doc. 87, Ex. 1), Plaintiff's rate of pay had increased to over $18 an hour. (Doc. 41, Ex. 2 at ¶ 5).

21. Due to two reorganizations in 2012 and 2014, the management structure at Tri-County has drastically changed. (Doc. 87 at 71-74).

22. The top manager at Tri-County remains the General Manager position. (Doc. 87 at 71).

23. Prior to the 2012 reorganization, Tri-County had four managers reporting directly to the General Manager. (Doc. 87 at 73).

24. At that time, Tri-County also had six supervisors reporting directly to the managers at Tri-County. (Doc. 87 at 73).

25. After the 2014 reorganization, Plaintiff, as a remaining supervisor, now reports directly to the General Manager. (Doc. 87 at 71).

26. In addition to Plaintiff, there is only one assistant manager and another supervisor reporting directly to the General Manager. (Doc. 87 at 71).

27. Today, there is one General Manager, one Assistant Manager and only three supervisor positions at Tri-County. (Doc. 87 at 73-74).

28. In the 2014 reorganization, Plaintiff recalls that two or three manager positions were eliminated at Tri-County. (Doc. 87 at 72).

29. Relevant to Plaintiff's supervisory position, Plaintiff recalls that four other supervisors had their positions eliminated at Tri-County in the 2014reorganization. (Doc. 87 at 73).

30. In the 2012 reorganization, Plaintiff recalls that one manager position was eliminated. (Doc. 87 at 72-73).

31. Plaintiff recalls that supervisor positions were also eliminated in the 2012 reorganization, but she does not recall the number of positions impacted. (Doc. 87 at 73).

32. Plaintiff admits that she has voluntarily elected to remain at Tri-County during the course of her employment with Best Buy. (Doc. 87 at 31).

33. Plaintiff further admits that she is familiar with Best Buy's job posting procedures and that she has seen promotional opportunities on Best Buy's job posting system. (Doc. 87 at 143).

34. However, the only promotion Plaintiff has applied for is the supervisor position that she was awarded in 2008. (Doc. 87 at 67).

35. The only other position that she was interested in is a temporary manager position that came open when her manager went on a medical leave in 2010. (Doc. 87 at 43).

36. Plaintiff admits that this position was only available for two months. (Doc. 87 at 43).

37. Plaintiff was told by her General Manager when the position became available that the General Manger did not feel like Plaintiff was ready for the manager position. (Doc. 87 at 124).

38. The temporary position was awarded to Amanda Peterson. (Doc. 87 at 124).

39. Plaintiff admits that Amanda Peterson held the same supervisor position as Plaintiff at a different Best Buy location. (Doc. 87 at 124).

40. Plaintiff believes that her race may have played a role in the decision to promote Amanda Peterson to the temporary position because she was told by one of the other plaintiffs in this case, Rossilee Patterson, that Amanda Peterson was on a Performance Improvement Plan at the time of the promotion. (Doc. 87 at 151-52).

41. Immediately prior to the promotion, Amanda Peterson reported to Tim Oldean. (Doc. 81 at 46-48).

42. Oldean confirmed that Rossilee Patterson was mistaken - Amanda Peterson was not on a Performance Improvement Plan at the time of the promotion. (Doc. 81 at 47).

43. Rather, Amanda Peterson was a top performer in the district and had excellent performance reviews as a supervisor. (Doc. 81 at 47-48).

44. On February 18, 2009, Plaintiff acknowledged her receipt of Best Buy's training procedures. (Doc. 87, Ex. 9).

45. Best Buy provides employees with two hours of pay per month for online training. (Doc. 87 at 100).

46. Plaintiff admits that she took a large number of online training courses during her long career with Best Buy. (Doc. 87 at 100-101, Ex. 10).

47. Despite the admittedly extensive training she has received since 2009 (Doc. 87 at 101), Plaintiff alleges that she was denied assistant manager training and permission to shadow other supervisors in "winning stores." (Id. at 101-102).

48. Plaintiff does not know if this type of training still exists at Best Buy. (Doc. 87 at 106).

49. As to shadowing, Plaintiff recalls that one former Tri-County supervisor was sent to shadow prior to 2009. (Doc. 87 at 107-108).

50. Plaintiff requested to shadow in 2011, but was told by her General Manager that the store did not have funds in its budget to permit the shadowing. (Doc. 87 at 110).

51. Despite two significant reorganizations, Plaintiff remains a Best Buy employee. (Doc. 87 at 71).

52. Plaintiff admits that she has never been suspended. (Doc. 87 at 179).

53. Over her eleven years of employment, Plaintiff was only disciplined on one occasion. (Doc. 87 at 179).

54. The only discipline Plaintiff received was a Final Warning issued on October 20, 2012. (Doc. 87, Ex. 13).

55. Plaintiff recalls the issue began with a customer asking her to provide him with a discount. (Doc. 87 at 172-173).

56. Although Plaintiff did have the ability to reduce the price of the product and she oftentimes reduced the price of products when asked, she admits that she refused the customer's requests on this occasion. (Doc. 87 at 173-174).

57. Plaintiff asked Amanda Peterson to handle the issue and Peterson handled the situation in a manner than Peterson felt was appropriate. (Doc. 87 at 175).

58. Plaintiff does not know how Peterson handled the issue. (Doc. 87 at 175).

59. Plaintiff admits that she approached Peterson after the customer left and she informed Peterson that she had to leave the store in order to "collect [her] thoughts." (Doc. 87 at 170).

60. In 2013, Plaintiff was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan. (Doc. 87, Ex. 12).

61. Plaintiff admits that in some of the sales categories her department was not meeting Best Buy's expectations. (Doc. 87 at 160-161).

62. The Performance Improvement Plan was given to Plaintiff in August 2013 and was in effect for ninety days. (Doc. 87, Ex. 12).

63. Plaintiff admits that the Performance Improvement Plan has not been raised with her since 2013. (Doc. 87 at 159-160).

64. Performance Improvement Plans and written warnings are not uncommon at Best Buy. (Doc. 41, Ex. 2 at ¶¶ 11-12).

65. In fact, one of Plaintiff's own supervisors, Michael Dreiling (white), was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan. (Doc. 83 at 11; Doc. 41, Ex. 2 at ¶ 11).

66. Additionally, numerous other white managers at Tri-County, including Aaron Reagan, Steve Renyolds, and Sean Gaynor were placed on a Performance Improvement Plan. (Doc. 54 at 32-33; Doc. 41, Ex. 2 at ¶ 11).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion for summary judgment should be granted if the evidence submitted to the Court demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the...