Sherrod v. Allison Transmission, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:19-cv-02233-JRS-DML,1:19-cv-02233-JRS-DML |
| Parties | SHERRI SHERROD, Plaintiff, v. ALLISON TRANSMISSION, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
Pro se Plaintiff Sherri Sherrod brings claims of race, sex, religion, age, and disability discrimination and retaliation against Defendant Allison Transmission, Inc., pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) She seeks "lost wages, pain and suffering, attorney's fees, punitive damages, and intangibles," (id. at 3), alleging retaliation "through written warnings, increased discipline, suspensions without pay, settlement of suspensions without pay, removal of duties, denying vacation time, intimidation, termination, and denial of unemployment claim," (id. at 2). Attached to her complaint was a Dismissal and Notice of Rights to Sue issued on March 5, 2019. (2018 Right to Sue, ECF No. 1-1; see also ECF No. 20-2 at 32.) Defendant has moved for summary judgment. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff has filed an Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment ("Opposition") stating that she "received disparate treatment being discriminated against because of my race (African American), sex, religion (Seventh-day Adventist), age (57), disability, and retaliation for previously filing an EEOC charge and an earlier lawsuit in 2014 . . . creating a hostile work environment." (ECF No. 23 at 2.) Defendant has filed a Reply in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 24.) Defendant's motion thus being fully briefed, is ripe for decision. Having carefully considered the motion, response, reply, evidence, and applicable law, the Court concludes that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 20), should be granted for the following reasons.
In October 2006, Sherrod began working at Allison Transmission, Inc. ("Allison"), becoming a permanent employee in 2008. (Sherrod Dep. Tr. 44:19-25, ECF No. 20-1; ECF No. 23 at 3.) Following several disciplinary actions issued against Sherrod, and Sherrod's various charges of discrimination leveled against Allison, Allison ultimately discharged her in January 2019, (Pence Decl. ¶ 67, ECF No. 20-3 at 12), setting the stage for this lawsuit.
Allison manufactures commercial-duty automatic transmissions and hybrid propulsion systems for on-highway trucks and buses, off-highway vehicles, and equipment and military vehicles. (Pence Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 20-3 at 1.) Allison employs approximately 3,100 employees in the United States, including approximately 1,500 hourly employees in Indianapolis who are represented by the union United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America's local chapter 933 ("UAW 933"). (Id.)
During her employment at Allison, Sherrod was a member of UAW 933. (Sherrod Dep. Tr. 45:2-6, ECF No. 20-1 at 5.) Allison's Labor Relations Department ("Labor Relations"), which is part of Allison's Human Resources Department, is led by Matt McLaughlin, Executive Director of Human Resources. (Pence Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 20-3 at 2.) Labor Relations is responsible for the administration of Allison's collective bargaining agreement with UAW 933, and the enforcement of the Shop Rules and other policies and procedures applicable to bargaining unit employees, such as Sherrod. (Id. ¶ 5.) Two collective bargaining agreements were in place while Sherrod worked at Allison. Allison's current collective bargaining agreement with UAW 933 is effective from December 18, 2017, through November 14, 2023 ("2017 Agreement"). (Id. ¶ 11; see also 2017 Agreement, Ex. I, ECF No. 20-3 at 15-41.) The prior agreement had been in effect since December 3, 2012 ("2012 Agreement"). (Pence Decl. ¶ 12; see also 2012 Agreement, Ex. II, ECF No. 20-3 at 42-70.)
Allison generally follows a system of progressive discipline, which is set forth on the Paragraph 76 Notice of Disciplinary Action ("DA") form provided to bargaining unit employees when disciplinary issues arise. (Pence Decl. ¶ 13, ECF No. 20-3 at 3; Paragraph 76 Notice of Disciplinary Action, Ex. III, ECF No. 20-3 at 71.) Bargaining unit employees are subject to discipline for violations of Allison's Shop Rules, (see Shop Rules, Ex. IV, ECF No. 20-3 at 72), and other applicable policies, (Pence Decl. ¶ 14, ECF No. 20-3 at 3), and the disciplinary options ranged from a reprimand to termination of employment,1 (id. ¶ 13). In the case of more serious Shop Rule orpolicy violations, discipline may begin at a higher level, up to and including termination. (Id. ¶ 15.) For example, for violations of Shop Rule 14, discipline begins with at least a balance-of-shift suspension. (Id.; see also Shop Rules, Ex. IV, ECF No. 20-3 at 72) ("Shop Rule 14: Refusal or failure to do job assignment").) Under Paragraph 76(b) of the 2012 Agreement and the 2017 Agreement, an instance of discipline will be removed from an employee's record eighteen months after it issues. (Pence Decl. ¶ 16, ECF No. 20-3 at 3; see also 2017 Agreement, Ex. I, ECF No. 20-3 at 33; 2012 Agreement, Ex. II, ECF No. 20-3 at 61.)
Allison has forty Shop Rules. (See Shop Rules, Ex. IV, ECF No. 20-3 at 72.) When a supervisor or Area Manager believes that a bargaining unit employee has violated Allison's Shop Rules or other applicable policy, the employee is scheduled for a disciplinary interview ("DI"). (Pence Decl. ¶ 17, ECF No. 20-3 at 3.) During the DI, the employee and his or her union representative has an opportunity to tell their side of the story before discipline issues. (Id.) For lower-level violations, the employee's supervisor conducts the DI. (Id. ¶ 18.) However, for higher-level violations, such as when an employee faces a balance-of-shift plus one-week suspension, either the supervisor or a member of Labor Relations conducts the DI. (Id.) And, when an employee faces termination, a member of Labor Relations conducts the DI. (Id.)
The 2012 Agreement and the 2017 Agreement each address vacation entitlements. (See generally 2017 Agreement, ECF No. 20-3 at 34-38; 2012 Agreement, ECF No. 20-3 at 63-67.) When eligible, employees may use vacation restricted time ("VR time") for absences. (2017 Agreement ¶ 194, ECF No. 20-3 at 36; 2012 Agreement ¶ 194, ECF No. 20-3 at 65.) Allison may grant, upon prior approval, the use of VR time for periods of absence less than four continuous hours. (2017 Agreement ¶ 194; 2012 Agreement ¶ 194.) Bargaining unit employees, through their union representatives, may bring grievances to challenge discipline or to allege other contractual violations. (2017 Agreement, ECF No. 20-3 at 20-25; 2012 Agreement, ECF No. 20-3 at 48-53.) Grievances that are not resolved between Allison and the Union may be taken to arbitration. (2017 Agreement ¶ 39, ECF No. 20-3 at 22; 2012 Agreement ¶ 39, ECF No. 20-3 at 50.)
From December 2010 until her termination, Sherrod worked on the day shift as a Fabricating Machining Specialist ("FMS Operator") in Department 2F40 in Allison's Plant 12. (Sherrod Dep. Tr. 46:9-47:19, ECF No. 20-1 at 6-7.) Jeff Pence, a member of Labor Relations Staff beginning in 2007, was the Labor Relations Representative for Plant 12 from March 1, 2017, through April 3, 2019. (Pence Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4, ECF No. 20-3 at 1.) Department 2F40 is divided into several different cells in which transmission parts are processed through a series of machines, (Sherrod Dep. Tr. 48:18-49:11, ECF No. 20-1 at 8-9), and as an FMS Operator, Sherrod worked on processing those transmission parts, (id. at 48:13-48:17, ECF No. 20-1 at 8-9). Typically, whenSherrod worked her day shift in Department 2F40, there were four to five FMS Operators, including Sherrod, as well as a job setter. (Id. at 49:14-50:7, ECF No. 9-10.)
Sherrod's shift was regularly scheduled for Monday through Friday, from 6:30 a.m. to either 2:30 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. (Id. at 47:17-48:3, ECF No. 7-8.) At times, her department worked either an expanded weekday shift or a Saturday shift. (Pence Decl. ¶ 21, ECF No. 20-3 at 4.) These shifts are referred to as "Plan A" shifts, a reference to part of a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") between Allison and UAW 933. (See MOU, Ex. V, ECF No. 20-3 at 73-75.) Saturday Plan A shifts ("Plan A Saturday") may be scheduled by the plant director for a variety of reasons, such as heightened customer demand, having a crucial machine down during the week and needing to make up for lost production time, or a delay by a supplier providing raw material for production. (Pence Decl. ¶ 22, ECF No. 20-3 at 4.) Plan A Saturdays are scheduled on an ad hoc basis and are generally announced on the Wednesday before the Saturday on which they are to be worked. (Id. ¶ 23.)
Under the MOU, an employee who has scheduled vacation on the Friday before, or the Monday after, a Plan A Saturday must be excused from working the Saturday shift. (See 2017 Agreement, ECF No. 20-3 at 29; 2012 Agreement, ECF No. 20-3 at 57.) Generally, in February, employees are required to make vacation requests for the entire year. (2017 Agreement, ECF No. 20-3 at 38; 2012 Agreement, ECF No. 20-3 at 66.) However, supervisors do allow employees to schedule vacation over the course of the year, as circumstances permit. (Pence Decl. ¶ 26, ECF No. 20-3 at 5.) Vacation requests are approved or disapproved on a department-by-department basisbased on seniority and operational needs. (Id. ¶ 27.) Similarly, in the event more employees apply for time off than can be spared from the job at a given time, vacation is awarded according to seniority. (2017 Agreement ¶ 202e, ECF No. 20-3 at 38; 2012 Agreement ¶ 202e, ECF No. 20-3 at 66.) But, once an employee is given a written disposition of their vacation time off request, approved vacation time cannot be changed without the mutual consent of Allison and the employee. (2017...
To continue reading
Request your trial