History
  • No items yet
midpage
256 F. Supp. 3d 770
M.D. Tenn.
2017
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiff Sheilah Mallory, a 52-year-old African American accountant, was hired by Caterpillar in 1996 and worked as an Accountant III (grade 7) before being placed on a performance improvement plan and accepting a demotion to Accountant II (grade 6) effective Feb. 1, 2011.
  • Mid-2010 performance evaluations are disputed: Mallory alleges a positive mid-year rating by former supervisor Brindos was replaced by a negative “4” evaluation attributed to interim supervisor Pagel, triggering the PIP and ultimately the demotion.
  • After demotion Mallory received mostly "Expected/Valued" ratings (2011–2015); multiple supervisors marked her as "not promotable" in talent files, and she applied unsuccessfully for lateral Credit Analyst positions in 2013–2015.
  • Mallory filed several EEOC charges (2011, 2012, 2015) alleging age, race, gender, national origin discrimination, retaliation, and wage discrimination; she filed suit in 2016 asserting § 1981, Title VII, THRA, retaliation, hostile work environment, and Equal Pay Act claims.
  • Caterpillar moved for summary judgment on all claims, asserting statutes of limitations bars, lack of a viable prima facie case (no similarly situated comparator, no adverse action for transfers), and legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for actions (e.g., hires were better qualified; salary differences due to retention after prior demotions).

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Timeliness/statutes of limitations Mallory contends fraudulent concealment of the mid-2010 evaluation tolled Title VII limitations for her 2010 demotion claim. Caterpillar contends the claims are time-barred; Mallory had prior EEOC charges and cannot show active concealment, prevention of discovery, or diligence. Court: Claims before the relevant limitation dates are time-barred; no tolling for fraudulent concealment.
Discrimination (demotion/transfer) Mallory urges the demotion and non-selection for lateral transfers were motivated by race/age/sex and point to altered evaluation and "non-promotable" file notations as evidence of pretext. Caterpillar says Mallory cannot identify a similarly situated non-protected comparator, and hiring decisions were based on superior qualifications and relevant experience. Court: Summary judgment for Caterpillar; Mallory failed to establish prima facie discrimination or identify similarly situated employees treated differently.
Hostile work environment Mallory cites supervisors whispering and micromanaging as harassment tied to protected status. Caterpillar argues alleged incidents are either untimely or insufficiently severe/pervasive. Court: Grant summary judgment — harassment claims are untimely and, even if timely, not severe or pervasive enough to create hostile work environment.
Retaliation & Equal Pay Act Mallory asserts adverse actions followed her EEOC filings and that pay disparities reflect sex-based discrimination. Caterpillar contends no but-for causation for retaliation after Sept. 2014 and that pay differences result from legitimate factors (e.g., retention of prior higher pay after demotion). Court: Summary judgment for Caterpillar — no but-for causation for retaliation; EPA claim fails because Caterpillar offered a factor-other-than-sex defense and Mallory showed no pretext.

Key Cases Cited

  • Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (standard for viewing evidence on summary judgment)
  • Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment requires more than a scintilla of evidence)
  • McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment proofs)
  • Univ. of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (but-for causation required for Title VII retaliation)
  • Ruth v. Unifund CCR Partners, 604 F.3d 908 (6th Cir. 2010) (elements for tolling limitations by fraudulent concealment)
  • Laster v. City of Kalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714 (6th Cir. 2014) (retaliation prima facie elements)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Mallory v. Caterpillar Financial Services Corp.
Court Name: District Court, M.D. Tennessee
Date Published: Apr 28, 2017
Citations: 256 F. Supp. 3d 770; 2017 WL 1545559; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65068; NO. 3:16-cv-00639
Docket Number: NO. 3:16-cv-00639
Court Abbreviation: M.D. Tenn.
Log In
    Mallory v. Caterpillar Financial Services Corp., 256 F. Supp. 3d 770