Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Leanne Renee Kidd v. Mando America Corporation

April 10, 2012


The opinion of the court was delivered by: W. Harold Albritton Senior United States District Judge



This case is before the court on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant, Mando America Corporation ("MAC"), on January 27, 2012 (Doc. # 44). The Plaintiff, Leanne Renee Kidd ("Kidd"), filed a Complaint alleging the following: Count One -- hostile work environment, Count Two -- Title VII gender discrimination, Count Three -- racial discrimination and harassment under Title VII and § 1981, Count Four -- national origin discrimination, Count Five -- retaliation, Count Six -- negligent or wanton hiring, training, supervision, and retention, and Count Seven -- intentional infliction of emotional distress on October 15, 2010 (Doc. # 1). Kidd filed a Response to MAC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 54) on February 28, 2012, and MAC filed a Reply to Kidd's Response (Doc. # 55) on March 6, 2012.

The court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

For the reasons to be discussed, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is due to be GRANTED.


Summary judgment is proper "if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

The party asking for summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion," relying on submissions "which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Id. at 323. Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must "go beyond the pleadings" and show that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324.

Both the party "asserting that a fact cannot be," and a party asserting that a fact is genuinely disputed, must support their assertions by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record," or by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A), (B). Acceptable materials under Rule 56(c)(1)(A) include "depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials."

To avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party "must do more than show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). On the other hand, the evidence of the non-movant must be believed and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in its favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

After the nonmoving party has responded to the motion for summary judgment, the court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).


The following is an account of the relevant facts with all justifiable inferences drawn in favor of Kidd*fn1

MAC is located in Opelika, Alabama, and produces products for different automotive manufacturers. MAC's main customers are General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford in Detriot, Michigan; Hyundai Motors Manufacturing in Montgomery, Alabama; and Kia Motors Manufacturing in West Point, Georgia.

Leanne Kidd is a Caucasian female from the United States who has a Bachelors Degree with a double major in accounting and management. Kidd was working on a Masters in Public Accounting degree in 2009, which she completed in 2010. Kidd worked in the accounting department of MAC from January 2008 until September 2010 when she resigned. When Kidd was hired, Tim Anderson was Assistant Accounting Manager, B.J. Cheong was the Accounting Manager, Henry Lee was Chief Financial Officer for MAC, and Tae Kwak was President of MAC. Cheong, Lee, and Kwak are Korean males. MAC terminated Anderson in March 2008 for performance reasons.

Upon Anderson's termination, Kidd believed that she adopted Anderson's entire set of job duties. According to Kwak's undisputed testimony, Anderson's position included Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivable, Tax, Financing, all the reporting responsibilities, and closing responsibilities. Kidd admits that she never handled Accounts Receivable but rather Accounts Payable, wires, and the general ledger. Some employees of MAC did believe that Kidd was assisting in managing the accounting department, but Kidd explained that MAC does not take job titles very seriously. After performing some of Anderson's duties for awhile, Kidd complained in July 2008 that she deserved a promotion and raise. Since she believed that she was performing the entirety of Anderson's job duties, she thought that she deserved his title.

Cheong recognized that Kidd had taken on more responsibilities since Anderson's departure, and he told her that MAC would promote her after she had been with the company for a year. Kidd does not claim that he promised her the position of Assistant Accounting Manager. After her one year anniversary, despite still maintaining her increased work load, Kidd was not given a promotion or raise; however, Kidd was already the highest paid accountant in the department. Kidd also believes that there were no complaints about her job performance, but Kidd's citation to the record to support this claim, Doc. # 49-1, comes from the deposition ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.