580 F. App'x 352
6th Cir.2014Background
- Ortiz, a Hispanic press operator at Hershey's Tennessee plant, alleges race discrimination in termination and related disciplinary decisions.
- Ortiz was permanently assigned to the D-line in 2002/2003; workload and line assignments were business decisions, not per se discriminatory.
- Grandberry, hired 2007, enforced policies more strictly and issued most write-ups to minorities; Ortiz received multiple disciplinary warnings starting 2007.
- Ortiz was on a last chance agreement after a 2008 incident and later had two August 2010 quality-control violations leading to suspension and investigation.
- In August 2010, Ortiz lost a wand feeding into packaging; he failed to report it. Subsequent two violations and LCA status culminated in termination on August 30, 2010.
- Ortiz’s Title VII claims were reviewed on summary judgment; district court held his workload-discrimination claim time-barred and his termination claim inadequately supported by a comparators analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie discrimination established? | Ortiz argues race-based disparate treatment. | Hershey asserts no prima facie case due to lack of similarly-situated comparator. | No prima facie case established for discrimination. |
| Timeliness of workload-discrimination claim | Ortiz contend(s) ongoing discriminatory effects. | Discrete acts outside 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) barred. | Time-bar applies; claim dismissed. |
| Similarity of comparators for termination decision | Garlock/Johnson are like Ortiz. | Garlock/Johnson not similarly situated; Salas omitted. | No valid comparator; no inference of discrimination. |
| Materiality of alleged alternate facts (altercation/handling) | Evidence could show discriminatory intent. | Alternate facts insufficient to establish prima facie case. | Even with alternative findings, no prima facie case. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for circumstantial evidence)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts are time-barred if not timely filed)
- Mitchell v. Toledo Hospital, 964 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. 1992) (test for similarly situated employees in discrimination cases)
- Martinez v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 703 F.3d 911 (6th Cir. 2013) (comparator analysis requires comparable conduct and circumstances)
- Spees v. James Marine, Inc., 617 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 2010) (alteration of job responsibilities not automatically adverse action)
- Dodd v. Donahoe, 715 F.3d 151 (6th Cir. 2013) (McDonnell Douglas prima facie framework)
- Whitfield v. Tenn., 639 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2011) (non-discriminatory explanations and pretext framework)