Keller v. Clean Harbors, Inc., 2:17-cv-11807

Shannon Keller, pro se, sued Clean Harbors, Inc. alleging gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the Equal Pay Act (EPA), and Michigan's ELCRA after her January 2016 termination.
Keller worked from Dec. 2009 to Jan. 2016 as a sales/vertical account manager for Clean Harbors Environmental Services (a subsidiary); she complains of repeated reassignment of lucrative accounts to male colleagues and eventual termination during a corporate reorganization.
Clean Harbors moved for summary judgment arguing (1) it was not Keller’s statutory employer, (2) Keller failed to make prima facie showings of discrimination or retaliation, and (3) Keller offered no evidence of pretext.
The record showed evidence that Clean Harbors handled hiring, employment agreements, benefits/awards, policies, and corporate governance for the subsidiary, supporting Keller’s contention that Clean Harbors and its subsidiary share an identity/joint-employer relationship.
Keller’s pre-September 21, 2015 claims are time-barred for EEOC purposes but may be used as background for a timely claim (termination).
The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment: Keller failed to show she was replaced by someone outside the protected class, failed to show similarly situated males were treated more favorably with admissible evidence, failed to prove the decisionmaker knew of her complaints (retaliation), and abandoned her EPA claim by not opposing summary judgment on it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Clean Harbors is Keller’s employer for Title VII/ELCRA	Clean Harbors hired her, issued employment paperwork, policies, benefits and agreements under "Clean Harbors" name	Clean Harbors is a separate corporation from Clean Harbors Environmental Services and not her statutory employer	Identity/joint-employer factors support treating Clean Harbors as her employer for Title VII/ELCRA purposes
Timeliness / EEOC charging party mismatch	Keller named Clean Harbors Environmental Services at EEOC but sued Clean Harbors; argues identity of interest excuses mismatch	Clean Harbors contends failure to name bars suit against it	Court applied "identity of interest" tests and excused failure to name Clean Harbors; no prejudice shown
Gender discrimination (prima facie; replacement / disparate treatment)	Keller: accounts reassigned to male colleagues; alleged a male hire replaced her	Clean Harbors: reassigned accounts routinely; duties absorbed by existing employees; termination due to workforce reduction	Keller failed to show replacement by outside male or similarly situated males treated better with admissible evidence; summary judgment for defendant
Retaliation (knowledge/causal connection)	Keller: complained about account reassignments and assumed management knew	Clean Harbors: decisionmaker (Parry) did not know of her complaints; speculation insufficient	Keller offered no evidence decisionmaker knew of protected activity; retaliation claim fails

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard) (trial judge does not weigh evidence but determines genuine issues of material fact)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting) (movant bears initial burden; nonmoving party must show specific facts)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (summary judgment credibility limits) (court need not adopt a version of facts ``blatantly contradicted by the record'')
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (timeliness; prior acts may be used as background evidence)
Swallows v. Barnes & Noble Book Stores, 128 F.3d 990 (6th Cir.) (tests for single/joint employer and agency theories)
Geiger v. Tower Automotive, 579 F.3d 614 (6th Cir.) (what constitutes being "replaced" for prima facie case)
Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484 (6th Cir.) (failure to present evidence against a well-supported summary judgment motion supports granting it)