Standifer v. Sonic-Williams Motors, LLC
| Decision Date | 08 November 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:04-CV-2359-JHH.,2:04-CV-2359-JHH. |
| Citation | 401 F.Supp.2d 1205 |
| Parties | Deborah STANDIFER, Plaintiff, v. SONIC-WILLIAMS MOTORS, LLC d/b/a Tom Williams Lexus, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
Jack J. Hall, Jr., Hall Conerly & Bolvig PC, Birmingham, Jay E. Stover, Stover Stewart & Phillips LLC, Gadsden, AL, for Plaintiff.
Steven M. Stastny, Susan W. Bullock, Ford & Harrison LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant.
The court has before it the September 15, 2005 motion (doc. # 32) of defendant Sonic Williams Motors, LLC d/b/a Tom Williams Lexus for summary judgment. Pursuant to the court's September 16, 2005 and October 3, 2005 orders, the motion was deemed submitted, without oral argument, on November 1, 2005.
Plaintiff Deborah Standifer commenced this action on July 30, 2004 by filing a complaint in this court alleging gender and pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq, and violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-54. Plaintiff contends that defendant's alleged conduct constitutes (1) disparate treatment regarding pay and promotion under Title VII, (2) constructive discharge under Title VII, (3) a hostile work environment under Title VII, (4) interference with her FMLA rights, and (5) retaliation in violation of the FMLA. Defendant's September 15, 2005 motion for summary judgment asserts that plaintiff has failed to establish a prima face case for any of plaintiff's claims, and, in the alternative, that she cannot establish that defendant's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions was pretext.
Both parties have filed briefs and submitted evidence in support of their respective positions. Defendant submitted a brief (doc. # 32) and evidence1 (doc. # 33) in support of its motion for summary judgment on September 15, 2005. On October 21, 2005, plaintiff filed a brief (doc. # 43) and evidence2 (doc. # 44) in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment. On November 1, 2005, defendant filed a brief (doc. # 45) in reply to plaintiff's opposition.3
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir.2000). The party asking for summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the pleadings or filings which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Once the moving party has met its burden, Rule 56(e) requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by its own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548.
The substantive law will identify which facts are material and which are irrelevant. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). All reasonable doubts about the facts and all justifiable inferences are resolved in favor of the non-movant. See Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir.1993). A dispute is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. See id. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
The method used by the party moving for summary judgment to discharge its initial burden depends on whether that party bears the burden of proof on the issue at trial. See Fitzpatrick, 2 F.3d at 1115-17 (citing United States v. Four Parcels of Real Property, 941 F.2d 1428 (11th Cir.1991) (en banc)). If the moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, then it can only meet its initial burden on summary judgment by coming forward with positive evidence demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact; i.e. facts that would entitle it to a directed verdict if not controverted at trial. See Fitzpatrick, 2 F.3d at 1115. Once the moving party makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to produce significant, probative evidence demonstrating a genuine issue for trial.
If the moving party does not bear the burden of proof at trial, it can satisfy its initial burden on summary judgment in either of two ways. First, the moving party may produce affirmative evidence negating a material fact, thus demonstrating that the non-moving party will be unable to prove its case at trial. Once the moving party satisfies its burden using this method, the non-moving party must respond with positive evidence sufficient to resist a motion for directed verdict at trial.
The second method by which the moving party who does not bear the burden of proof at trial can satisfy its initial burden on summary judgment is to affirmatively show the absence of evidence in the record to support a judgment for the non-moving party on the issue in question. This method requires more than a simple statement that the non-moving party cannot meet its burden at trial but does not require evidence negating the non-movant's claim; it simply requires the movant to point out to the district court that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. See Fitzpatrick, 2 F.3d at 1115-16. If the movant meets its initial burden by using this second method, the non-moving party may either point out to the court record evidence, overlooked or ignored by the movant, sufficient to withstand a directed verdict, or the non-moving party may come forward with additional evidence sufficient to withstand a directed verdict motion at trial based on the alleged evidentiary deficiency. However, when responding, the non-movant can no longer rest on mere allegations, but must set forth evidence of specific facts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 358, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)).
In 1998, Sonic-Williams Motors, LLC d/b/a Tom Williams Lexus ("TWL" or defendant) was purchased by Sonic Automotive, Inc. ("Sonic"). (Williams Dep. at 7; Wiggins Dep. at 19.) Although Sonic owns many dealerships, each dealership operates within its own corporate structure and is run separately from other affiliated dealerships. (Wiggins Dep. at 41.) Sonic employees, however, oversee the operations of each dealership, and the general manager at each dealership is accountable to Sonic for the dealership's performance. (Id. at 17-18, 37-38, 41.)
In June or July 2000, Standifer began her employment with TWL5 as a Finance and Insurance Manager ("F & I manager"). (Pl. Dep. at 29-30.) As an F & I manager, Standifer handled the paperwork relating to the financing, insurance, and/or leasing of a vehicle and attempted to sell the customer "add-on" products. (Id. at 25-26.) Standifer's compensation was commission-based, relative to the amount of profit she produced through financing, insurance and add-on sales. (Wiggins Dep. at 140, 202-03.)
On March 12, 2003, Standifer took leave under the FMLA for the birth of her baby. (Pl. Dep. at 54-56.) She returned to work for a few hours a day on June 11 or 12, 2003 and returned to work full-time on June 16, 2003. (Id. at 56.) Standifer was reinstated to the same F & I manager position and was under the same pay plan. (Id. at 61, 164-65.) Before her maternity leave, Standifer was the only F & I manager, but when she returned from leave she was one of two F & I managers. (Id. at 82-83, 114-16.)
In June 2003, Sonic added TWL to the region under the oversight of Regional Vice President Jeff Wiggins. (Wiggins Dep. at 18, 65-66.) As part of his oversight, Wiggins determined the relative performance of the dealership by reviewing and analyzing the dealership's financial reports. (Id. at 132-33.)
Shortly after starting oversight of TWL, Wiggins discovered that TWL had been improperly compensating its F & I managers. (Id. at 88-90, 110-11.) TWL was giving its F & I managers credit for two products that were included in the sales price of every vehicle. (Id. at 88-92.) According to Wiggins, the F & I managers should not have been receiving commission for these products because they were not actually selling the product. (Id. at 91-93.) Effective July 1, 2003, Wiggins stopped the practice of allocating profits of the sales of these two products as "back end" profits and correctly allocated them as "front end" profits. (Id. at 106-07, 110-11, 115-16, 173-74.)
Standifer testified that her performance declined because of the removal of these additional products. (Pl. Dep. at 224.) She admitted that, before the change, her numbers on the sales of these products were high because they were part of the sale before the customer reached her desk, and that, as a result, her percentages were "inflated." (Id. at 89-90, 95.) Standifer testified that the first month the products were removed was "a shocker," and that her profit per vehicle decreased from a range of mid-six hundred to seven hundred dollars per vehicle to a range of two or three hundred dollars per vehicle.6 (Id. at ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. Compass Grp., Inc.
...evidence. Carter v. Three Springs Residential Treatment, 132 F.3d 635, 641 (11th Cir.1998); Standifer v. Sonic–Williams Motors L.L.C., 401 F.Supp.2d 1205, 1215 (N.D.Ala.2005). Thus, the initial question is whether that burden has been met.a. Direct Evidence Plaintiff retorts the defendants'......
-
Degraw v. Technologies, Case No. 09–4016–RDR.
...under FMLA if he reports for work with the required certification when his FMLA leave concludes); Standifer v. Sonic–Williams Motors, 401 F.Supp.2d 1205, 1221–22 (N.D.Ala.2005) (employee not entitled to reinstatement because she took 13 weeks, not 12 weeks, off work); Dogmanits v. Capital B......
-
Battle v. Corizon, LLC
...(an employee who returns after exhausting FMLA leave cannot state an entitlement claim under the FMLA); Standifer v. Sonic-Williams Motors, 401 F. Supp. 2d 1205, 1221-22 (N.D. Ala. 2005) (an employee was not entitled to reinstatement because she took thirteen weeks, not twelve weeks, off wo......
-
Coleman v. Hwashin Am. Corp.
...fact without inference. Castle v. Sangamo Weston, Inc., 837 F.2d 1550, 1558 (11th Cir. 1988); see also Standifer v. Sonic-Williams Motors, LLC, 401 F. Supp. 2d 1205, 1215 (N.D. Ala. 2005). Alternatively, a plaintiff may prove discrimination by presenting circumstantial evidence regarding di......