Winchester v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-00025-TBR |
| Parties | WILLIAM T. WINCHESTER, Plaintiff v. WAL-MART STORES INC., SAM'S EAST, INC. d/b/a SAM'S CLUB Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
This matter is before the Court upon multiple competing motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff has filed two motions for partial summary judgment. (DN 27, 30). Defendant has responded. (DN 35, 43). Plaintiff has replied. (DN 39, 46). Defendant has filed a sur-reply. (DN 51). Defendant has also moved for summary judgment. (DN 38). Plaintiff has responded. (DN 47). Defendant has replied. (DN 82). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motions for partial summary judgment are DENIED and Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
This matter arises out of the employment of Plaintiff William T. Winchester at Defendant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Sam's East, Inc. (collectively, "Sam's Club"). Winchester claims Sam's Club violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), discriminated against him on the basis of religion, and retaliated against and wrongfully discharged him. (Docket #7).
Winchester was hired as a full-time Rotisserie Associate at Sam's Club in July, 2012. Approximately three months later Winchester applied for a Team Lead position in the rotisserie/deli department. Sam's Club eventually hired Louie Shales, a former Wal-Mart employee with thirteen years of experience, as Team Lead. Winchester believes that Shales was hired because Shales (42) was younger than Winchester (50). Winchester notes that Shales worked for Wal-Mart, not Sam's Club, and therefore did not have "Sam's Club" experience. Winchester also criticized the interview process for asking "5 subjective questions, none of which involved knowledge of the Rotisserie, Deli, or HMS operations." (DN 7). Winchester also claims he "observed older persons to be hired into more laborious and lower pay level positions, while younger persons have been hired into higher pay level positions." (DN 7).
In February, 2013, Winchester was informed by Doug Mohr, the assistant manager, that there would be one full-time and two part-time Home Meal Solutions ("HMS") positions available. The following month, Mohr informed Winchester that only two part-time HMS positions would be offered, with an hourly wage of $9.50 and a workload of 60 hours per every two weeks. Winchester told Mohr he was not interested. Sam's Club subsequently hired a woman at $10.50 per hour who worked 64 hours per every two weeks. Winchester claims if his "pay would have been $10.50 per hour with the same hours, after doing the math, Winchester would have continued the application process for that position." (DN 7). Winchester also claims that the second part-time employee hired started at $9.50 per hour, with the only difference being he was a male and over forty.
On June 21, 2013, Winchester filed an intake questionnaire with the EEOC. (DN 7-1). Winchester subsequently filed an EEOC complaint alleging Sam's Club hired Shales due to his age and that Winchester had been discriminated against. (DN 5-2).Winchester claims he suffered several adverse employment actions after he filed his EEOC complaint. Winchester claims his subsequent evaluation was lowered, although he was still rated as a "solid performer" in four out of five areas and "exceeds expectations" on the fifth. (DN 38-2). Winchester also claims that Shales required him to perform additional work, spread "lies about Winchester and instigat[ed] problems." (DN 7). Winchester also claims that after he left a cart of outdated chickens unattended, he returned to find that a "knife was sticking straight out of the breast of the chicken." (DN 7). Another time Winchester found a knife in a cooler "[w]here I would put my hands." (DN 36-1). "And it stayed -- I didn't move it and it stayed there for over two weeks," even though Winchester claims a supervisor conducting a walk-through inspection should have discovered it. (DN 43-1). Winchester also claims that his supervisors attempted to reduce his work hours and alter his schedule, though Winchester admits that he never actually worked less hours and his schedule was only pushed back by one hour.
On July 20, 2013, Winchester applied for a position called Member Champion. The Member Champion position required work on Sundays. Winchester, a Christian who belongs to the Salvation Army, was never scheduled by Sam's Club to work on Sundays. Winchester interviewed for the position, but when he informed the interviewers that he was unavailable to work on Sundays they stopped the interview. On October 26, 2013, Winchester filed his second complaint with the EEOC claiming he had been discriminated against on the basis of his religion. (DN 5-3).
In the summer of 2014, Winchester was offered and accepted an accounting position with the Salvation Army, a job which paid approximately $3 per hour more thanWinchester earned at Sam's Club. In late June, 2014, Winchester gave Sam's Club two-week notice that he was leaving. (DN 36-1). Winchester intended that his final day of employment be July 9, 2014. (DN 30). On July 7, 2014, he arrived to find his "work area was unkempt and unsanitary" and the "chicken cooking schedule had not been adhered and no chickens were in the cooking ovens nor rodded and ready to be cooked," placing Winchester two hours behind schedule. (DN 30). Winchester states that "after enduring the above stated actions as long as possible, I took off my work apron and meat jacket, through (sic) them on the floor, and stated that I was 'through with this.'" (DN 30).
Winchester filed this action claiming disparate treatment, disparate impact, discrimination based on religion, retaliation, and wrongful discharge. (DN 7). The Court previously dismissed Winchester's disparate impact claim. (DN 16). Currently before the Court are the parties competing motions for summary judgment on Winchester's remaining claims.
Summary judgment is appropriate where "the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "[N]ot every issue of fact or conflicting inference presents a genuine issue of material fact." Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1477 (6th Cir. 1989). The test is whether the party bearing the burden of proof has presented a jury question as to each element in the case. Hartsel v. Keys, 87 F.3d 795, 799 (6th Cir. 1996). The plaintiff must present more than a mere scintilla of evidence in support of her position; she must present evidence on which the trier of fact could reasonably find for her. Id.(citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)). Mere speculation will not suffice to defeat a motion for summary judgment: Monette v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 90 F.3d 1173, 1177 (6th Cir. 1996), abrogated on other grounds by Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp., Inc., 681 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2012).
Winchester has asserted five claims against Sam's Club: (1) disparate treatment; (2) disparate impact; (3) discrimination based on religion; (4) retaliation; and (5) wrongful discharge. (DN 7). This Court previously granted Sam's Club's motion to dismiss Winchester's disparate impact claim. (DN 16). The Court will address Winchester's claims for (I) wrongful discharge, (II) disparate treatment, and (III) retaliation, before turning to Winchester's claim for (IV) religious discrimination.
Winchester claims Sam's Club wrongfully discharged him "vis-a-vis a constructive discharge" in violation of Kentucky state law. (DN 7).
The "commonly accepted standard" for a constructive discharge claim "is whether, based upon objective criteria, the conditions created by the employer's action are so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign." Com., Tourism Cabinet v. Stosberg, 948 S.W.2d 425, 427 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997); see also Darnell v. Campbell County Fiscal Court, 731 F. Supp. 1309, 1313 (E.D. Ky. 1990).
In the summer of 2014, Winchester accepted an accounting position with the local Salvation Army. (DN 30). This position paid approximately $3 an hour more than Winchester was earning at Sam's Club. (DN 36-1, p. 41). In late June, 2014, Winchester gave Sam's Club two-week notice that he was quitting. (DN 36-1). Winchester intended that his final day of employment be July 9, 2014. (DN 30). On July 7, 2014, he arrived to find his "work area was unkempt and unsanitary" and the "chicken cooking schedule had not been adhered and no chickens were in the cooking ovens nor rodded and ready to be cooked," placing Winchester two hours behind schedule. (DN 30). Winchester states that "after enduring the above stated actions as long as possible, I took off my work apron and meat jacket, through them on the floor, and stated that I was 'through with this.'" (DN 30).
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Winchester is only claiming he was constructively discharged for the final two days of his employment. (DN 30-3) ("Even though Plaintiffs constructive discharge occurred 2 days prior to his intended last day to work due to his 2 weeks notice, it was a constructive discharge nonetheless"). Winchester admitted he voluntarily resigned to accept a position with the Salvation Army and that his resignation was involuntary only "[t]o the extent that I didn't work out my notice because of the working conditions." (DN 43-1, p. 30).
The Court finds that arriving to an unclean work station and having to perform additional work to catch up1 does not constitute objective...
To continue reading
Request your trial