Scott v. Haier U.S. Appliance Sols.

• Decision Date: 22 June 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-CV-844-CRS
• Parties: DAMON SCOTT PLAINTIFF v. HAIER U.S. APPLIANCE SOLUTIONS, INC. DEFENDANT
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky

DAMON SCOTT PLAINTIFF v. HAIER U.S. APPLIANCESOLUTIONS, INC. DEFENDANT

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-CV-844-CRS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE

June 22, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the motion of the Defendant, Haier U.S. Appliance Solutions, Inc. ("Haier"), for summary judgment. DN 22. Plaintiff, Damon Scott ("Scott"), responded in opposition to the motion. DN 23. Haier then filed a reply. DN 24. The matter is now ripe for review.

For the reasons stated herein, Haier's motion for summary judgment will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Scott, an African American male, began working for GE Appliances ("GEA"), a home appliance manufacturer that is majority owned by Haier, as a second-shift production worker in August 2014. DN 22-2 at 14 (pg. 53-54). Three years later, Scott was promoted to serve as a team leader for the second shift. DN 22-2 at 21 (pg. 81). In this capacity, Scott supervised roughly twenty employees and was responsible for "learning all the jobs" in his area, "cover[ing] for . . . breaks and stuff," training employees to perform the jobs he oversaw, "coach[ing] PPE and things of that sort," and delegat[ing] . . . different tasks and situations." DN 22-2 at 21 (pg. 84), 23 (pg. 92).

A. GEA's Relevant Policies and Procedures

As part of his employment, Scott received copies of GEA's employee policies and procedures, including GEA's Fair Employment Commitment Policy and GEA's Rules of Conduct. DN 22-2 at 15 (p. 57), 16 (p. 63), 17 (p. 65-66). The Fair Employment Commitment Policy provides, in part, that:

GE Appliances ("the Company") is an equal opportunity employer and is committed to fair employment practices. In accordance with applicable law, the Company prohibits harassment and discrimination against employees, applicants for employment, and individuals providing services to GE Appliances based on their race, religion, religious creed, color, national or ethnic origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex (including pregnancy), gender (including gender identity and expression), age, sexual orientation, military and veteran status and any other consideration protected by federal, state or local law ("protected characteristics").

GE Appliances is committed to providing a work environment free from unlawful harassment and discrimination based on any protected characteristics. As a result, the Company maintains a strict policy prohibiting harassment, including sexual harassment, and discrimination against employees, applicants for employment, and individuals providing services to GE Appliances on any legally recognized basis, including, but not limited to all of the protected characteristics listed above.

GE Appliances will not tolerate retaliation against any employee or applicant for making a good faith complaint of discrimination or harassment (either to GE Appliances or to a government agency), opposing such conduct, or for cooperating in such an investigation (either an investigation conducted by GE Appliances or an investigation, proceeding, or hearing conducted by a government enforcement agency or under GE Appliances Alternative Dispute Resolution procedures).

DN 22-4 at 1-2. In addition to these commitments, the Fair Employment and Commitment Policy (1) summarizes the process to submit a written or verbal report of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation, (2) discusses GEA's confidential investigative process, and (3) explains that employeesmay file claims of unlawful harassment or discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). DN 22-4 at 1-3.

Similarly, GEA's Rules of Conduct contains guidelines "to make . . . Appliance Park a safe, pleasant place to work, and to help ensure fair and consistent treatment of all employees." DN 22-3 at 1. To effectuate this objective, the Rules of Conduct outline disciplinary procedures for warning notices, concerted work interferences, and serious discipline offenses. DN 22-3 at 1-2. Warning notices are "the basic form of discipline used at Appliance Park" and are issued for offenses such as "[e]xcessive absenteeism or tardiness," "[e]arly quitting," "[l]oafing or abuse of Company time," "[l]eaving work area during working hours without permission," "[f]ailure to follow instructions from Company management or Security," "[c]areless workmanship," "making scrap unnecessarily or spoilage due to negligence," and "[m]inor violations of safety rules."¹ DN 22-3 at 1. If an employee receives three warning notices within a twelve-month period, he or she is subject to "a week's disciplinary time off." DN 22-3 at 1. "Recurring misconduct resulting in four written warning notices will result in discharge." DN 22-3 at 2. For a warning notice to become "inactive," an employee must not receive any additional warning notices within a twelve-month period. DN 22-3 at 1, 2.

B. Relevant Events

In the fall of 2018, Scott voluntarily transitioned to serve as a team leader for the third shift "[b]ecause the line was moving to third shift." DN 22-2 at 23 (pg. 91), 31 (pg. 123), 32 (pg. 127). Shortly thereafter, Paula Hicks ("Hicks"), an African American female, began serving as the thirdshift P2 manager and supervised over one hundred employees, including Scott. DN 22-2 at 24 (p. 93), 31 (pg. 123).

Not long after Hicks undertook her managerial role, Scott contends that Hicks began "messing with [him]." DN 22-2 at 34 (pg. 134). Specifically, he testified that Hicks "harassed" and "bullied" him by "yelling at [him]" to "get [the line] working," "threatening disqualification," "staring at him," "giving [him] unreal expectations," "blaming [him] for things that wasn't [his] fault," and making it "a point to point out [his] errors." DN 33 (pg. 132), 34 (pg. 133-136), 35 (pg. 137). Scott stated that he informed Ron Pollard ("Pollard"), another GEA manager, and Tanesha, a union representative for the third shift, about Hicks' alleged behavior shortly after it began², but conceded that he did not did not share his complaints with GEA's human resource department or explain that the alleged harassment occurred because of his race. DN 22-2 at 34 (pg. 133-135), 37 (pg. 146-147), 38 (pg. 150), 39 (pg. 153).

Scott received his first warning notice from Hicks on February 24, 2019 for failing to "call in 15 minutes before [his] shift."³ DN 22-2 at 39 (pg. 155), 22-5 at 7. Scott does not dispute that he clocked in late on that day and testified that he did not have an objection to the warning notice despite his misunderstanding that employees were no longer permitted to use paid time off to cover any tardiness. DN 22-2 at 39 (pg. 156), 40 (pg. 157), 43 (pg. 171), 44 (pg. 173).

The next day, Hicks issued Scott a second warning notice for not wearing "sleeves (arm guards)" in the Phase 3 area. DN 22-2 at 40 (pg. 157-158), 22-5 at 5. Although Scott admits he was not wearing sleeves/arm guards when he "walked over to Phase 3 . . . to say something to [his]employee," he disputes the warning notice, claiming that he was "not in the area that required sleeves" when he spoke to the employee because he stayed in the adjacent "locker area." DN 22-2 at 40 (pg. 158-160), 41 (pg. 161-162).

On February 28, Scott received his third warning notice from Hicks for not wearing "sleeves [] in the Phase 3 area." DN 22-2 at 44 (pg. 174), 22-5 at 4. Scott similarly disagrees with the basis for this warning notice because he "does not remember doing it" or being in an area that required personal protective equipment ("PPE"). DN 22-2 at 44 (pg. 176), 45 (pg. 177-178). In fact, he testified that Hicks "made this stuff up, and [] falsified documents on [him]." DN 22-2 at 45 (pg. 179). Despite his objection and a grievance that was filed by his Union to remove the warning notice from his file, Scott was suspended without pay in accordance with GEA's Rules of Conduct from March 3 to March 10 because this was his third warning notice within a twelve-month period. DN 22-2 at 46 (pg. 182), 22-5 at 4, 23-3 at 2.

Three days after returning to work, Scott received his fourth warning notice for "[m]isuse of [c]ompany [t]ime" because he "did not return from [his] break on time." DN 22-2 at 46 (pg. 183), 22-5 at 2. Scott testified that he should not have received a warning notice on this occasion because he timely returned from his break to start the line, and then asked Craig, a second-shift team leader, to cover for him while he went to the restroom. DN 22-2 at 46 (pg. 184), 47 (pg. 185-187). Nevertheless, Hicks recommended Scott for termination based on GEA's Rules of Conduct considering that this was his fourth written notice in the past twelve months. DN 22-5 at 2.

The next day, Scott filed a Charge of Discrimination form with the EEOC, alleging discrimination based on his race, sex, and retaliation. DN 23-4 at 2. According to this document, Scott "began being subjected to different terms and conditions of employment by . . . Hicks . . . in January 2019, [including], but not limited to "being spoken to harshly," "being singled out,""receiving write-ups," and "not [receiving] a reason for the different terms and conditions of employment." DN 23-4 at 2.

On May 7, Scott's present counsel filed a Charge of Discrimination form with the EEOC on Scott's behalf. DN 22-2 at 52 (pg. 206-207), 24-2 at 2. Like Scott's earlier charge of discrimination, this document alleges that "in or around January 2019, [Scott] began being subjected to difference [sic] terms and conditions of his employment by his supervisor, [] Hicks, to include, but not limited to, being spoken to harshly and being singled out." DN 24-2 at 2. Unlike Scott's earlier charge, though, this document asserts that Scott filed his initial EEOC form before he received his fourth warning notice⁴ and that "[t]he actions for which [Scott] has been disciplined for have not resulted in discipline for similarly situated individuals." DN...