Longoria v. Autoneum North America Inc.
3:14-cv-02648
N.D. OhioSep 13, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Albert Longoria, a Hispanic Production Supervisor at Autoneum North America, saw an ethnically offensive cartoon on a shared work computer in late 2012, complained to his supervisor (Mackie) and HR, and alleged subsequent threats by Mackie.
- Autoneum documented multiple performance problems: failure to issue timely attendance warnings and new-hire evaluations, improper overtime assignments, inaccurate production reports, a public argument with a coworker, and safety/housekeeping lapses.
- Autoneum issued a Letter of Concern (Sept. 2012), gave a negative 2012 performance review, placed Longoria on a 90‑day Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in March 2013, and suspended him after safety-related complaints in April 2013.
- Autoneum terminated Longoria on April 12, 2013, citing post-transfer quality, staffing, and safety issues; his duties were reassigned and a non‑Hispanic employee assumed his former duties about 75 days later.
- Longoria sued under Title VII and Ohio law for racial and perceived-national‑origin discrimination and for retaliation based on his complaints about the computer-screen incident; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding Longoria failed to make a prima facie discrimination case (replacement timing undermined the claim) and that Autoneum had legitimate, non‑discriminatory reasons for termination which were not shown to be pretextual; the perceived‑national‑origin theory and claims against the parent corporation also failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination (Title VII / Ohio) — prima facie elements | Longoria: he is Hispanic, was fired, was qualified, and ultimately replaced by a non‑Hispanic (Shawn Durbin). | Autoneum: Longoria was not replaced promptly; duties were redistributed and the eventual reassignment occurred 75 days later, undermining replacement element. | Court: No prima facie case based on replacement timing; summary judgment for defendant. |
| Race discrimination — pretext | Longoria: employer's performance reasons were pretext for discrimination tied to his complaints. | Autoneum: documented, ongoing performance problems, warnings, PIP, suspensions provide legitimate reasons. | Court: Employer had honest, reasonable belief in non‑discriminatory reasons; Longoria failed to show pretext. |
| Perceived‑national‑origin discrimination (Ohio law) | Longoria: Autoneum perceived him as Mexican and fired him for that perceived origin. | Autoneum: Longoria is U.S.‑born; perceived‑origin theory is not a recognized Ohio claim and lacks evidence. | Court: Claim rejected as a legal theory and for failing pretext prong; summary judgment for defendant. |
| Retaliation (federal and state) | Longoria: he engaged in protected activity (complained about the cartoon); adverse actions followed (suspension, discharge); causal link exists. | Autoneum: legitimate non‑retaliatory reasons for discipline and termination; reasons not pretextual. | Court: Even assuming prima facie case, Longoria failed to show pretext; summary judgment for defendant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden‑shifting framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (summary judgment evidence construed for non‑movant)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination cases)
- Wexler v. White's Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (qualifications inquiry in prima facie case)
- Loyd v. Saint Joseph Mercy Oakland, 766 F.3d 580 (employer investigation and honest‑belief rule)
- Grosjean v. First Energy Corp., 349 F.3d 332 (when reassignment constitutes "replacement")
- Lilley v. BTM Corp., 958 F.2d 746 (spreading duties among existing employees is not replacement)
- St. Jude Med. S.C. v. [named party], [citation="504 F. App'x 473"] (honest‑belief rule; single non‑pretextual reason supports summary judgment)
