227 F. Supp. 3d 824
E.D. Mich.2017Background
- Purnima Shrivastava, a teller born in 1959 (in her 60s), worked for RBS Citizens from 2002 until termination on March 18, 2014. She alleges age discrimination and hostile work environment under the ADEA and Michigan ELCRA.
- Management implemented new operating models (UBM/BIC) in 2013 requiring new duties; Shrivastava received multiple customer complaints and made several processing errors (including cashing a counterfeit check and failing to process night deposits).
- Shrivastava missed quarterly referral goals for Q2–Q4 2013 and Q1 2014 pace issues; she was placed on a PIP (Dec. 2013), then a Final Written Warning (Jan. 2014), an FWWE, and recommended for termination in Feb. 2014.
- Shrivastava alleges branch manager Alaina Keen made age-related remarks (asking about retirement) and called her “slow,” discouraged coworker assistance, and denied opportunities (e.g., flyering); Keen recommended termination based on referrals, customer complaints, and policy violations.
- The court found no direct evidence of age discrimination, treated the ELCRA claims like ADEA claims, applied McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting, and concluded Shrivastava failed to show pretext or a hostile work environment; summary judgment for defendants granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct evidence of age discrimination | Keen’s retirement questions and comments that Shrivastava was “slow” show age bias | Remarks were stray, ambiguous, not by decisionmaker in context, and require inferences | Court: remarks are stray/ambiguous; no direct evidence survives summary judgment |
| Prima facie qualification element | Long tenure and continuous employment show Shrivastava was qualified | Performance shortfalls and complaints show she was not performing satisfactorily | Court: qualification element need not be resolved because even if prima facie case made, defendants offered legitimate reasons and plaintiff failed to prove pretext |
| Pretext (legitimate non‑discriminatory reasons) | Reasons (referral shortfalls, complaints, PNF) were manufactured, shifted, or applied inconsistently, and Keen targeted older workers | Defendants cite admissible documentation of referrals, complaints, PNF, progressive discipline, and consistent rationale | Court: reasons had basis in fact, were not shown to be insufficient or dishonest; plaintiff failed to raise genuine issue of pretext |
| Hostile work environment | Repeated comments about retirement, being called slow, unequal assistance/opportunities created hostile environment | Remarks isolated/minor; conduct not severe or pervasive; some evidence inadmissible hearsay | Court: conduct not objectively severe or pervasive; hostile-work-environment claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext can be shown by demonstrating employer's explanation is unworthy of credence)
- Texas Dep’t of Comm. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (defendant must articulate legitimate non‑discriminatory reason; need not persuade court of truth)
- Wexler v. White’s Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2003) (qualifications inquiry at prima facie stage focuses on objective qualifications; employer’s reasons considered later)
- Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 1078 (6th Cir. 1994) (methods for proving pretext and discussion of inferences of mendacity)
- Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799 (6th Cir. 1998) (caution about employers offering multiple reasons; multiple suspicious reasons can support an inference of pretext)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (summary judgment view of facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party applies only when genuine dispute exists)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmoving party must present more than metaphysical doubt to defeat summary judgment)
- Rowan v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., Inc., 360 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2004) (definition of direct evidence requiring no inference)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (discusses burden and effect of employer’s articulated reasons and finding of pretext)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile work environment standard — conduct must be objectively severe or pervasive)