Kelly v. Pinnacle Foods Group LLC
2:16-cv-10022
E.D. Mich.Jul 10, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (African-American female) was a union labeler operator at Pinnacle Foods, employed from May 2012 until terminated in June 2015.
- In April 2015 Plaintiff reported coworker Lynn Hickey for abusive/threatening language; Hickey was suspended five days (third offense would be terminable).
- On June 4, 2015 Plaintiff left her work station in violation of company Rule 4(c) after machine malfunctioned; she was suspended pending investigation for resulting downtime.
- While leaving/returning in the parking lot, three employees submitted statements that Plaintiff gave them the middle finger, made an obscene gesture, and yelled a homophobic slur at a gay coworker; Plaintiff admitted the middle-finger gesture but denied the slur and obscene gesture.
- HR managers Ryan and Schaffnit reviewed witness statements, did not interview Plaintiff, concluded Plaintiff violated Rule 11(c) (employee assault) and terminated her; Plaintiff sued under Michigan ELCRA for racial discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation and under §301 LMRA for breach of contract.
- District court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all claims, and dismissed §301 claim as time-barred (consistent with prior dismissal of union defendant on statute of limitations grounds).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Racial discrimination (ELCRA) | Termination was motivated by racial bias; differential treatment (Hickey not fired) and investigation was insufficient | Termination was based on witness statements showing obscene/homophobic conduct; decisionmakers had no known racial bias | Summary judgment for defendant — no prima facie inference of race-based firing; employer offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reason and no showing of pretext |
| Racial harassment / hostile work environment | Hickey’s prior conduct and workplace tension created a racially hostile environment | Plaintiff cannot identify race-based comments or conduct; complaints were speculative and not reported as race-based to employer | Summary judgment for defendant — plaintiff failed to show conduct was race-based or that employer had notice |
| Retaliation (ELCRA) | Complained to supervisor (Levi) about coworkers sabotaging her line; that complaint was a protected activity and a cause of termination | Plaintiff did not clearly raise a racial-discrimination complaint to qualify as protected activity; no causal link between complaints to Levi and HR decisionmakers | Summary judgment for defendant — no protected activity as defined under ELCRA and no causal connection shown |
| Breach of contract (§301 LMRA) | Union/Employer breached collective-bargaining procedures by terminating her | Claim is time-barred under the statute of limitations; parallel dismissal previously granted against union | Summary judgment for defendant — §301 claim barred by statute of limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment — drawing inferences against nonmovant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for disparate-treatment proof)
- Chen v. Dow Chem. Co., 580 F.3d 394 (pretext standards for termination cases)
- Hedrick v. W. Reserve Care Sys., 355 F.3d 444 (pretext analysis elements)
- Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co., 451 Mich. 358 (elements of hostile work environment under Michigan law)
- Radtke v. Everett, 442 Mich. 368 (reasonable-person standard for hostile work environment)
- Barrett v. Kirtland Cmty. Coll., 245 Mich. App. 306 (what constitutes protected activity under CRA)
- Meyers v. City of Center Line, 242 Mich. App. 560 (retaliation prima facie elements under Michigan law)