Dukes v. Associated Materials, L.L.C.
2014 Ohio 4322
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Dukes, an African American e mployee, was placed at Alside by Select Staffing and terminated in January 2008 after attendance-point discipline.
- Dukes sued for race discrimination and retaliation under R.C. 4112.02; claims were dismissed via summary judgment on August 30, 2013.
- The appellate court reviews summary judgments de novo, applying Civ.R. 56 standards and viewing in the light most favorable to the non-movant.
- Alside’s attendance policy terminated employees with six points in a calendar year; points accrue for tardiness (0.5) and unapproved absences (1), with a doctor’s note possibly reducing points.
- Dukes accrued eight attendance points in January 2008; issues included whether Dukes suffered an adverse action and whether Flores (a nonprotected comparator) received more favorable treatment; disputed whether vacation days or medical excuses affected points.
- The court concludes material facts remained in dispute on prima facie discrimination and pretext, warrants reversal and remand for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie case of race discrimination established? | Dukes argues he showed protected status, adverse action, qualification, and comparator with better treatment. | Appellees argue no adverse action or no disparate treatment; Flores did not receive preferential treatment. | No; remanded for factual development on prima facie case. |
| Whether defenses show pretext for discriminatory termination? | Dukes contends attendance-based termination was pretext for discrimination (e.g., Flores accommodated). | Appellees claim legitimate, non-discriminatory reason (attendance points) and no pretext. | Yes; genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on pretext. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (burden-shifting for summary judgment on Civ.R. 56)
- Rivers v. Cashland, 2013-Ohio-1225 (9th Dist. Summit 2013) (prima facie framework for discrimination using indirect evidence)
- Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 29 F.3d 1078 (7th Cir.1994) (pretext framework for employee discharge)
- Chiancone v. City of Akron, 2014-Ohio-1500 (9th Dist. Summit 2014) (Manzer pretext standards applied to pretext analysis)
- Williams v. Spitzer Auto World Amherst, Inc., 2008-Ohio-1467 (9th Dist. Lorain 2008) (prima facie elements for discrimination)
- Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (pretext and discrimination standard in summary judgment)