United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Western Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
L.
SCOTT COOGLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
I.
Introduction
Plaintiff
Reginald Eric Sprowl (“Sprowl”), an
African-American, brings this action against his former
employer, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc.
(“MBUSI”). In Counts I and II of his Amended
Complaint, Sprowl asserts race discrimination and retaliation
claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title
VII”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In Count III, Sprowl
alleges that he was constructively discharged because of his
race.
Presently
before the Court are MBUSI’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (doc. 24) and Motion to Strike (doc. 36). For the
reasons stated below, MBUSI’s motion for summary
judgment (doc. 24) is due to be GRANTED, and MBUSI’s
motion to strike (doc. 36) is due to be DENIED as MOOT.
II.
Background[1]
On
September 4, 2012, Sprowl began his employment with MBUSI as
a maintenance member in MBUSI’s Assembly Plant 2.
During Sprowl’s employment with MBUSI, Scotty Morris
(“Morris”) was his group leader and Scott McCall
(“McCall”) was his manager.
MBUSI
periodically provides performance evaluations for its
maintenance team members. The performance evaluations consist
of two pages, the first of which provides team members with
an overall numerical rating for their current performance in
their existing job. A score of 3.00 or higher indicates that
the employee “Meets Expectations.” On the second
page of the evaluation, maintenance team members are rated as
to their potential for advancement (“potential
appraisal”) for the next level as either
“Ready” or “Needs Development.”
Morris
provided Sprowl’s performance evaluations. For
Sprowl’s first performance evaluation, which took place
in October 2013, Morris evaluated Sprowl’s performance
as Meets Expectations with a numerical grade of 3.00
(“Meets Expectations”). For Sprowl’s
potential appraisal, Morris evaluated Sprowl as “Needs
Development.” In November 2014, for his second
performance evaluation of Sprowl, Morris again evaluated
Sprowl’s performance with a numerical grade of 3.00 and
marked Sprowl’s potential appraisal as “Needs
Development.”
In
September 2015, Sprowl reported to Morris that fellow
maintenance team member Ken Gamble (“Gamble”) had
made a racist comment. MBUSI investigated the incident and
ultimately terminated Gamble’s employment. Sprowl
testified that several of the other maintenance team members
blamed him for Gamble’s firing. Specifically, Sprowl
believed that Morris tried to turn people against him after
he complained about Gamble, though Sprowl admitted that he
never heard or saw Morris doing so, nor did anyone tell
Sprowl that Morris did so. During the course of the
EEOC’s investigation of MBUSI, two of Sprowl’s
co-workers stated that Sprowl was treated differently after
making the Gamble complaint. Dennis Finnen
(“Finnen”), who worked at MBUSI from 2014 to
2016, said that Sprowl was “shunned” by the
Maintenance crew after making the Gamble complaint. A fellow
team member, Cecil Agee (“Agee”), said that there
was an “uproar” over Gamble’s termination
and that Sprowl was blamed. Agee also considered this
incident to be the reason why Sprowl was not promoted to team
leader.
In
January 2016, MBUSI posted an opening for an Assembly
maintenance team leader position. The team leader is the
person responsible for directing work when the group leader
is unavailable. As group leaders do not work the night shift,
team leaders effectively act as group leaders during night
shifts in the Assembly Shop. Additionally, the team leader
position is considered a stepping stone to the group leader
position. The January 2016 Team Leader Open Nomination Form
listed the following as eligibility requirements for team
leader promotions: (1) completion of the team leader
assessment prior to signup; (2) no current corrective
performance review; (3) ability to perform the essential
functions of the position; (4) overall “S” on
performance evaluation; (5) must be a MBUSI team member in
Assembly Plant 2; and (6) must have been in current position
for at least six months.
MBUSI
evaluates team members who apply for a team leader promotion-
and who meet the basic eligibility requirements-based on
three separate criteria. MBUSI assigns the team members
either 1 or 2 points for each criterion. These three criteria
include the team member’s assessment result (29 and
above = 2 points, less than 29 = 1 point), the team
member’s potential appraisal for the next level (Ready
= 2 points, Needs Development = 1 point), and the team
member’s peer input ratings (3.5 and above = 2 points,
less than 3.5 = 1 point). Based on these three criteria,
MBUSI designates team members as Ready 1 (overall receiving 6
points or 2 points in each of the three categories), Ready 2
(overall receiving 5 points or 2 points in two categories and
1 point in one category), or Needs Development (receiving 1
point in two or more categories). MBUSI fills the team leader
position from Ready 1 and Ready 2 candidates. A candidate
with an overall rating of Needs Development is considered by
MBUSI as not eligible for consideration for promotion.
Sprowl
signed up to be considered for the January 2016 team leader
job posting. Sprowl also completed a team leader assessment
form. However, when MBUSI solicited peer input for the
candidates for the maintenance team leader position,
Sprowl’s name did not appear on the peer input sheet.
Sprowl raised this issue with Morris, and MBUSI determined
that it had mistakenly left Sprowl’s name off the peer
input sheet. According to MBUSI’s HR specialist Val
Banta (“Banta”), Sprowl had been left off the
list because she initially could not find a record that
Sprowl had completed the team leader assessment. Banta
contends this is because she originally looked up his
information under the name Eric Sprowl while Sprowl’s
team leader assessment result had been listed under the name
Reginald Sprowl. Once MBUSI discovered the mistake, it
discarded the original peer input sheets and repeated the
peer input process with Sprowl’s name included.
At the
time of the January 2016 team leader job posting, Sprowl did
not have a current performance evaluation. Four white
candidates for the maintenance team leader position also did
not have current performance evaluations. As a result, Morris
provided Sprowl and the four white candidates with updated
performance evaluations. Sprowl received a performance
evaluation of Meets Expectations with a numerical grade of
3.04 and potential appraisal score of Needs Development.
While Morris rated two of the four white candidates with a
potential appraisal score of Ready, the other two white
candidates received a score of Needs Development.
Morris
cited several reasons why he rated Sprowl as Needs
Development on the potential appraisal. Morris testified that
Sprowl needed to volunteer to fill in as team leader when
necessary and fill out shift turn over reports. Morris also
said that Sprowl needed to gain more technical experience and
experience on the other side of the shop. Morris also felt
that Sprowl did not demonstrate leadership qualities
necessary for the team leader position. However, Sprowl
testified in his deposition that he did fill in as team
leader and that he had participated in leadership programs,
including a program in Germany.
Sprowl’s
peer input score, which his fellow team members supplied, was
3.4. Sprowl points out, however, that he received a higher
overall performance evaluation score than two of the three
white candidates selected for promotion. Based on the
criteria MBUSI uses to evaluate eligibility for promotions,
MBUSI assigned Sprowl only 1 point for peer input and 1 point
for his potential appraisal. Accordingly, Sprowl was rated as
Needs Development overall, and MBUSI determined that he was
Not Ready for the January 2016 promotion to team leader.
Ultimately,
Chris Jones (“Jones”), Brian Cooper
(“Cooper”), and Chris Hearle
(“Hearle”) were selected to fill the available
team leader positions. All three of these individuals are
white. During the evaluation process, Cooper had been rated
Ready 1, while Jones and Hearle were rated Ready 2. According
to Morris and McCall, these three candidates were selected as
team leaders because they considered them to be the best
qualified for the position (and more qualified than Sprowl).
The potential appraisals for Cooper and Hearle indicated that
they filled in for the team lead, completed all tasks a team
leader would complete in a normal work week, showed a
“desire to advance, ” and requested and accepted
additional projects. The potential appraisal for Jones
indicated that he filled in for the team leader and completed
all of the shift turnover information, that he was capable of
leading a team, and that he escalated when necessary.
In
March 2016, Sprowl filed an EEOC charge based on
MBUSI’s failure to promote him to the January 2016 team
leader position. After investigation, the EEOC issued Sprowl
a Notice of Right to Sue, stating that the EEOC “found
reasonable cause to believe that violations of the statute(s)
occurred.” (Doc. 16-1 at 2.) Both Morris and McCall
testified that, at that time, they were not made aware that
Sprowl had filed an EEOC charge.
In
March 2017, Sprowl applied for another maintenance team
leader position that had been posted. The March 2017 Team
Leader Open Nomination Form listed the same eligibility
requirements as the January 2016 Team Leader Open Nomination
Form. Again, Sprowl’s performance evaluation was not
current, so Morris provided him with another performance
evaluation. This time, Morris rated Sprowl as Meets
Expectations on his performance evaluation with a grade of
3.08. Sprowl’s potential appraisal score was again
rated as Needs Development. Sprowl’s peer input score
for this job posting again fell below a rating of 3.5.
Because
MBUSI only awarded Sprowl 1 point for the categories of
potential appraisal and peer review, Sprowl’s overall
score placed him in the Not Ready class. Therefore, Sprowl
was not eligible for the March 2017 team leader promotion.
MBUSI selected Nate Davis (“Davis”), who is white
and was rated Ready 1, to fill this team leader position.
Again, Morris and McCall believed that Davis was the most
qualified because of his leadership skills, his experience,
and his escalation and problem-solving skills.
After
Sprowl did not get the March 2017 promotion to team leader,
he decided to move back to his home state of South Carolina.
Sprowl secured a job with Sealed Air in South Carolina, and
he started his employment at Sealed Air on June 26, 2017.
III.
Standard
Summary
judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact[2] and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a). A dispute is genuine if “the record taken as a
whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the
nonmoving party.” Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co.,
Inc., 357 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004). A genuine
dispute as to a material fact exists “if the nonmoving
party has produced evidence such that a reasonable factfinder
could return a verdict in its favor.” Greenberg v.
BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 498 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th
Cir. 2007) (quoting Waddell v. Valley Forge Dental
Assocs., 276 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001)). The
trial judge should not weigh the evidence, but determine
whether there are any genuine issues of fact that should be
resolved at trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).
In
considering a motion for summary judgment, trial courts must
give deference to the nonmoving party by “view[ing] the
materials presented and all factual inferences in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Animal
Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 789 F.3d
1206, 1213–14 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Adickes v.
S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970)).
However, “unsubstantiated assertions alone are not
enough to withstand a motion for summary judgment.”
Rollins v. TechSouth, Inc., 833 F.2d 1525, 1529
(11th Cir. 1987). Conclusory allegations and “mere
scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmoving party will
not suffice to overcome a motion for summary judgment.”
Melton v. Abston, 841 F.3d 1207, 1219 (11th Cir.
2016) (per curiam) (quoting Young v. City of Palm
Bay, 358 F.3d 859, 860 (11th Cir. 2004)). In making a
motion for summary judgment, “the moving party has the
burden of either negating an essential element of the
nonmoving party’s case or showing that there is no
evidence to prove a fact necessary to the nonmoving
party’s case.” McGee v. Sentinel Offender
Servs., LLC, 719 F.3d 1236, 1242 (11th Cir. 2013).
Although the trial courts must use caution when granting
motions for summary judgment, “[s]ummary judgment
procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored procedural
shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules
as a whole.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 327 (1986).
IV.
Discussion
Absent
direct evidence of racial discrimination or retaliation, such
as specific statements made by the employer’s
representatives, a plaintiff may demonstrate circumstantial
evidence of disparate treatment through the McDonnell
Douglas burden-shifting framework. See McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); see
also Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450
U.S. 248 (1981).[3] Under this framework, the aggrieved
employee creates a presumption of unlawful discrimination by
first establishing a prima facie case of
discrimination. See Lewis v. Union City, 918 F.3d
1213, 1220–21 (11th Cir. 2019) (en banc). The burden
then shifts to the employer “to articulate a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.”
Id. at 1221 (citing Burdine, 450 U.S. at
253). If the employer proffers a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason, the burden returns to the employee
to prove that the employer’s reason is a pretext for
unlawful discrimination. Crawford v. Carroll, 529
F.3d 961, 976 (11th Cir. 2008). Although the McDonnell
Douglas framework is one way of showing discriminatory
intent, it is not the only way to show discriminatory intent
in a ...