Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_11-cv-03502/USCOURTS-alnd-2_11-cv-03502-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12117ad - Americans with Disabilities Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WONDA ENNIS, )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) 2:11-cv-03502-JHH

TYSON FOODS, INC., )

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has before it the Motion (Doc. #29) for Summary Judgment filed by

Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc. (“Tyson”) on July 5, 2013. Pursuant to the court’s

orders of July 9, 2013 (Doc. #33), July 15, 2013 (Doc. #35), and September 6, 2013

(Doc. #40), the motion for summary judgment is now under submission and is

considered herein without oral argument.

Having considered the briefs and evidentiary submissions, the court finds that

Tyson’s motion for summary judgment is due to be granted for the reasons outlined

below.

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Wonda Ennis commenced this action on September 28, 2011 by filing

a two count complaint in this court alleging: (1) violation of the Americans with

1

FILED

 2014 Mar-31 AM 09:45

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 1 of 39
Disabilities Act, as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act

(“ADAAA”)(Count One) and (2) violation ofthe Age Discrimination in Employment

Act (“ADEA”) (Count Two). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts in her complaint that she

was subjected to discrimination and that her employment was terminated because of

her age and/or disability. 

Defendant’s July 5, 2013 Motion (Doc. #29) for Summary Judgment asserts

that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that Tyson is entitled to judgment as

a matter of law as to all claims asserted against it.

The parties have each filed briefs and submitted evidence in support of their

respective positions concerning the pending motion for summary judgment. On July

5, 2013, Tyson submitted evidence (Doc. #30, Exhs. 1-11; Doc. #31, Exhs. 12-22)

1

in support of the motion and also filed a supporting memorandum brief (Doc. #32). 

Plaintiff submitted evidence (Doc. #36, Exhs. 1-28) in opposition to the motion for

2

Defendant Tyson submitted: the sworn deposition of Wonda Ennis, with exhibits (Exhibit

1

1); the sworn deposition of Jan Casey, with partial exhibits (Exhibit 2); the sworn deposition of

Vivian Chang (Exhibit 3); the sworn deposition of Brenda Trujillo, with partial exhibits (Exhibit 4);

the sworn deposition of Jason White, with exhibits (Exhibit 5); the sworn deposition of Brandy

Woods (Exhibit 6); the sworn declaration of Jan Casey, with exhibits (Exhibit 7); and the sworn

declaration of Vivian Chang, with exhibits (Exhibit 8).

Plaintiff submitted in support of her opposition to summary judgment: Vicky Craig 2

deposition (Exhibit 1); disciplinary action form 9/28/09 (Exhibit 2); disciplinary action form

12/11/09 (Exhibit 3); disciplinary action form 1/7/10 (Exhibit 4); disciplinary action form 1/28/10

(Exhibit 5); disciplinary memo 1/28/10 (Exhibit 6); Ennis email to White 12/28/09 (Exhibit 7);

White memo to Ennis 1/15/10 (Exhibit 8); Ennis evaluation 2007-2008 (Exhibit 9); Ennis evaluation

2008-2009 (Exhibit 10); White disciplinary form 11/12/10 (Exhibit 11); White disciplinary form

2

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 2 of 39
summary judgment on August 20, 2013 and on the same date filed an opposing brief

(Doc. #37). On August 28, 2013, Tyson filed a reply (Doc. #38) to Plaintiff’s

response in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

On September 6, 2013, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a

sur-reply brief. (Doc. #40). That sur-reply brief (Doc. #41) was filed on September

11, 2013 and Tyson’s response (Doc. #42) to the sur-reply was filed on September

16, 2013.

3

II. Legal Standards for Evaluating a Summary Judgment Motion

4

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment is proper "if

the pleadings, depositions, answersto interrogatories, and admissions on file, together

(Exhibit 12); Brandy Woods disciplinary form 4/4/11 (Exhibit 13); Woods’ signed rules of conduct

4/24/06 (Exhibit 14); Tyson timeline for Woods 3/28/11 (Exhibit 15); Chang email to White 4/1/11

(Exhibit 16); summary exhibit of Woods documentation (Exhibit 17); summary exhibit of emails

re: woods (Exhibit 18); White salary increase request 10/27/11 (Exhibit 19); Kirk email to Casey

3/17/11 (Exhibit 20); Phillips email to Casey 3/28/11 (Exhibit 21); Ennis EEOC charge 4/20/10

(Exhibit 23 * Exhibit 22 was skipped in the original filing*); Tyson Response to EEOC charge

1/5/11 (Exhibit 24); DIR Decision 4/9/10 (Exhibit 25); White email to Chang 1/7/10 (Exhibit 26);

White email to Casey 12/21/10 (Exhibit 27); and Tyson Rules of Conduct (Exhibit 28).

The sur-reply in further opposition to the motion for summary judgment primarily asserts 3

these arguments: (1) that Facebook messages cited by Tyson in its reply brief are not admissible; (2)

that the replacement argument made by Tyson should not be considered; (3) that Tyson accuses

Plaintiff of misstating the progressive discipline policy; (4) that the reasons for Ennis’s termination

are suspect; and (5) that White had some limited involvement in the discipline of Brandy Woods. 

(See generally Doc. #41). To the extent that it is relevant to the analysis herein, the sur-reply is

considered along with Tyson’s response to the sur-reply. (Doc. #42). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 was amended on December 1, 2010. However, even 4

with the 2010 amendments, “the standard for granting summary judgment remains unchanged.” 

FED. R. CIV. P. 56 Advisory Committee’s Note (2010 Amendments).

3

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 3 of 39
with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp.

v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The party asking for summary judgment always

bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion and

identifying those portions of the pleadings or filings which it believes demonstrate

the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See id. at 323. Once the moving party

has met her burden, Rule 56(e) requires the non-moving party to go beyond the

pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the depositions, answersto interrogatories,

and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue

for trial. See id. at 324. 

The substantive law will identify which facts are material and which are

irrelevant. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). All

reasonable doubts about the facts and all justifiable inferences are resolved in favor

of the non-movant. See Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir.

1993). A dispute is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could

return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. If the evidence

is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be

granted. See id. at 249.

The method used by the party moving for summary judgment to discharge her

4

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 4 of 39
initial burden depends on whether that party bears the burden of proof on the issue

at trial. See Fitzpatrick, 2 F.3d at 1115-17 (citing United States v. Four Parcels of

Real Property, 941 F.2d 1428 (11th Cir. 1991)(en banc)). If the moving party bears

the burden of proof at trial, then it can only meet its initial burden on summary

judgment by coming forward with positive evidence demonstrating the absence of a

genuine issue of material fact; i.e. facts that would entitle it to a directed verdict if not

controverted at trial. See Fitzpatrick, 2 F.3d at 1115. Once the moving party makes

such a showing, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to produce significant,

probative evidence demonstrating a genuine issue for trial.

If the moving party does not bear the burden of proof at trial, she can satisfy

her initial burden on summary judgment in either of two ways. First, the moving

party may produce affirmative evidence negating a material fact, thus demonstrating

that the non-moving party will be unable to prove its case at trial. Once the moving

party satisfies its burden using this method, the non-moving party must respond with

positive evidence sufficient to resist a motion for directed verdict at trial. The second

method by which the moving party who does not bear the burden of proof at trial can

satisfy its initial burden on summary judgment is to affirmatively show the absence

of evidence in the record to support a judgment for the non-moving party on the issue

in question. This method requires more than a simple statement that the non-moving

5

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 5 of 39
party cannot meet its burden at trial but does not require evidence negating the nonmovant’s claim; it simply requires that the movant point out to the district court that

there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case. See

Fitzpatrick, 2 F.3d at 1115-16. If the movant meets her initial burden by using this

second method, the non-moving party may either point out to the court record

evidence, overlooked or ignored by the movant, sufficient to withstand a directed

verdict, or the non-moving party may come forward with additional evidence

sufficient to withstand a directed verdict motion at trial based on the alleged

evidentiary deficiency. However, when responding, the non-movant can no longer

rest on mere allegations, but must set forth evidence of specific facts. See Lewis v.

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 358 (1996) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,

561 (1992)). The court is aware that the summary judgment rule applies in job

discrimination casesjust asin other cases. Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012,

1025 (11th Cir. 2000) (rejecting an earlier, contrary generalrule and emphasizing that

no thumb is to be placed on either side of the scale).

III. Relevant Undisputed Facts

5

A. Background of Plaintiff’s Employment at Tyson

If the facts are in dispute, they are stated in the manner most favorable to the Plaintiff. 5

Fitzpatrick, 2 F.3d at 1115.

6

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 6 of 39
Plaintiff Wonda Ennis started working for Tyson at its Blountsville plant, a

chicken processing facility, as a production worker in the Evisceration Department

in 1992. (Pl. Dep. at 57-58). Ennis worked in various production jobs until she was

promoted to Management Support QA Technical (“QA Tech”). (Pl. Dep. at 58). In

July of 2006, Ennis was promoted to the position of QA supervisor. (Pl. Dep. at 60).

While Plaintiff was a QA Tech and when promoted to QA supervisor, she reported

to Brenda Trujillo. (Pl. Dep. at 61, 63). 

The QA Department istasked with managing a program of product checks and

analyses in order to meet the quality and safety standards of Tyson’s customers. QA

Techs collect data and perform checks on product specifications such as marination,

net weights, piece counts, etc. (Pl. Dep. at 59). QA Clerks write reports, file

documents, perform quality checks, and work in the QA lab. (Pl. Dep. at 59). QA

Supervisors are tasked with monitoring and maintaining QA programs that verify that

product specifications are met and with ensuring compliance with applicable

regulatory requirements. (Pl. Dep. at 77). 

QA Supervisors report directly to the Plant QA Manager, who reports up

through a corporate QA chain of command. (Pl. Dep. at 82). The QA Department

reports up through corporate QA instead of plant management to reduce any possible

conflict of interest between production at the plant and Quality Assurance. (Pl. Dep.

7

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 7 of 39
at 82). 

B. Plaintiff’s Employment in QA

When Ennis began working in QA Tech, she had to learn to perform various

QA functions on the computer. (Pl. Dep. at 78). As a QA Clerk, Ennis taught herself

how to use the forms and reports, and experienced no problems with her ability to

learn those functions on the computer. (Pl. Dep. at 79). Ennis felt confident in her

abilities as a QA Clerk on the computer. (Pl. Dep. at 89). 

When Ennis was promoted to QA Supervisor in July 2006, she was 55 years

old. (Pl. Dep. at 100). She went from working the first shift to working the second

shift, and managed employees that she had not been working with as a co-employee

prior to the promotion. (Pl. Dep. at 101-102). In addition, Ennis was tasked with

monitoring and maintaining all aspects of the entire QA program on her shift, which

called for a new level of responsibility. In this regard, Ennis understood that she was

going to learn a lot of new skills, and that the QA Supervisor position had a

significantly increased level of responsibility than her prior QA Tech and Clerk

positions. (Pl. Dep. at 103). Ennis admits thatshe had some challenges transitioning

and learning her new QA Supervisor duties. (Pl. Dep. at 105). 

During Plaintiff’s employment as a QA clerk and for three years of her position

as a QA Supervisor, supervisorBrenda Trujillo evaluated her performance five times. 

8

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 8 of 39
(Trujillo Dep. at 264). In all of those evaluations, Ennis was rated as meeting

expectations, including those evaluations while Plaintiff was in the role of QA

Supervisor. (Trujillo Dep. at 264). With the September 2008 evaluation, however,

Trujillo set new goals for Ennis to accomplish in 2009 – specifically, for Ennis to

become “proficient in the Plant View system.” (Exh. 18 to Pl. Dep.). To become

proficient, Trujillo wrote: “This will be accomplished by practicing in the system and

using knowledge obtained in the Plant View Administration class. This will be

verified by tests entered, QA data verification, and timely responses to requests for

items added.” (Exh. 18 to Pl. Dep.). In March 2009, Tyson sent Ennis to Arkansas

for the Plant View Administration Class, the same two days of training that Trujillo

attended. (Pl. Dep. at 163). 

C. The Working Relationship of Trujillo and Ennis

In or around October 2008 (almost immediately after the September 2008

evaluation), the QA Department in Blountsville started having problems performing

QA functions satisfactorily. (Pl. Dep. at 115). During this time, Trujillo took issue

with Ennis’s work performance. (Pl. Dep. at 135). In addition, Trujillo was not

getting along with many employees in the QA Department. (Pl. Dep. at 115-116). 

Ennis complained to Human Resources about Trujillo, specifically stating that

“Brenda [Trujillo] . . . talks down to me and really all of us.” (Pl. Dep. at 136). Ennis

9

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 9 of 39
understood that Trujillo was issued a written warning as a result of the investigation

conducted by HR after Ennis’s complaint. (Pl. Dep. at 142). Ennis wassatisfied with

the outcome of the investigation and never reported back to HR of any continuing

problems with Trujillo. (Pl. Dep. at 143). 

In November 2008, Trujillo documented a counseling session with Ennis

regarding her failure to sign off on Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points

(“HACCP”) paperwork as required. (Exh. 19 to Pl. Dep.). The required daily

paperwork had not been done for two days. (Exh. 19 to Pl. Dep.). This QA check

was critical to avoiding any problems with product that had already shipped from the

plant. (Exh. 19 to Pl. Dep.). 

Trujillo continued to document performance issues withEnnis. In March 2009,

Trujillo met with Ennis and counseled her on not answering emails; not following up

on customer requirements (instances where data was not recorded by Ennis’s QA

Techs, instances where Ennis had given QA Techs permission to skip checks required

by customers, and an occasion where Ennis waited two weeks to respond to a request

from a customer for data and did not send the data until a second request wasreceived

fromthe customer); not responding to requests for information/data needed for audits

(having to be asked three times for chiller dwells and temperatures before sending

them, not completing the Foreign Materialsummary until Trujillo asked for it twice);

10

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 10 of 39
and not organizing and informing QA Techs about their schedules. (Exh. 20 to Pl.

Dep.). Trujillo reminded Ennis that the Blountsville plant was “becoming a plant in

the spotlight due to the new customer base we have attained. We, as a department,

need to make sure all details of our duties are carried out. Attention to details and

communication is of the utmost importance.” (Exh. 20 to Pl. Dep.). Ennissigned the

memo to file and described the documents as “just a reminder from [her] boss that

[her] department was a mess.” (Exh. 20 to Pl. Dep.; Pl. Dep. at 454-455). 

Trujillo’s employment at Tyson was terminated in June 2009 when she

received four written warningsin a 12 month time period, including write-upsfor job

performance. (Pl. Dep. at 173). One incident requiring Trujillo’s write-up related to

a racist symbol in the workplace that Trujillo failed to report. (Trujillo Dep. at 100-

104; Casey Dep. at 239). 

D. Interim Manager Tammy Cannon

During the interim time between Trujillo’s departure and the hiring of a new

QA Manager, a QA Manager from the Albertville plant, Tammy Cannon, filled in at

the Blountsville plant. (Pl. Dep. at 52). Ennis had some performance issues under

Cannon’s supervision. On July 16, 2009, Cannon issued Plaintiff a counseling

statement for not putting product on hold after being instructed to do so by USDA. 

(Exh. 21 to Pl. Dep.). 

11

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 11 of 39
In July 2009, Ennis had an anxiety attack at work and had to leave early. On

July 14, 2009, Ennis was returned to work by her doctor, Dr. Lennie Gibson. (Casey

Decl., ¶ 11). Dr. Gibson stated on the Return to Work Certification that Ennis

suffered from “anxiety nervosis longstanding use of Ativan. Had depression,

excessive perspiration, chronic fatigue, no energy.” (Casey Decl., ¶ 11). He further

stated there was “no reason [Ennis] can’t continue her job.” (Casey Decl., ¶ 11). Dr.

Gibson returned Plaintiff to work full duty with no request for accommodation. 

(Casey Decl., ¶ 11). 

On July 17, 2009, Jan Casey, then Blountsville Plant HR Manager, requested

permission to “double slot” the second shift QA Supervisor position (Ennis’s

position). (PX 26). Casey requested authority to hire a second QA Supervisor,

Matthew Crowe, to work temporarily on the second shift with Ennisto help get things

caught up in the QA Department after Trujillo’s departure. (PX 26). Casey explained

to Ennis that Crowe was hired temporarily to help get the QA Department in order

and to assist Ennis in completing the second shift QA work. (PX 26). However,

Ennistestified that Crowe never helped her perform her job functions and that Crowe

was hired only because the department in general was so far behind. (Pl. Dep. at

227).

12

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 12 of 39
E. White is Hired as Manager

Jason White was hired as QA Manager and began working at the plant on

August 2, 2009. (PX 26). Prior to White accepting the job as QA Manager in

Blountsville, he visited the plant and conducted an internal audit in order to assessthe

status of the QA Department. (Pl. Dep. at 219). The audit was White’s first

impression of the QA Department. Ennis testified that the documents and data

needed for the audit “wasn’t really good at all” and that the department failed the

audit. (Pl. Dep. at 219). Plaintiff described the QA Department and the audit as “a

mess.” (Pl. Dep. at 223). Ennis expected that her new manager would implement

new ways of doing things in the QA Department, especially since there were many

things that needed to be improved. (Pl. Dep. at 223-224). 

On August 13, 2009, Ennis was unable to respond to a request for data on a

customer complaint, because the QA Techs on her shift were performing “cook offs”

and she had told them not to worry about performing checks. (PX 26). As such, there

was no QA data for a response to the customer. (PX 26). White did not issue any

written discipline to Ennis for this performance issue.

On the same day, August 13, 2009, Vivian Chang, Food Safety QA Division

Manager for Tyson Foods (and White’s direct supervisor), emailed White regarding

a customer issue from Wendy’s. (PX 26). White forwarded the inquiry to Ennis who

13

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 13 of 39
responded toChang’s questions. (PX 26). Chang emailed Ennis almost immediately,

with questions regarding an attached report. (PX 26). After receiving no response,

Chang emailed Ennis again three hours later seeking the response and finally emailed

White to get the answer needed. (PX 26). White did not issue any written discipline

to Ennis for this performance issue. (PX 26). 

On August 18, 2009, White met with Ennis about an issue with an hourly

worker in QA who complained about Ennis to HR. (PX 26). The worker had

complained that Ennis was unprofessional and accusatory. (PX 26). The HR

investigation revealed that the hourly worker had indeed been late for work many

times, but that Ennis had failed to take the proper disciplinary action. (PX 26). In

fact, based on time records, had Ennis been following policy with regard to issuing

attendance points, the employee would have no longer been eligible to work in the

QA Department. (PX 26). White spoke to Ennis about being professional and

issuing attendance points as required when her employees were late to work, but

again did not issue any written discipline to Ennis.

On August 31, 2009, White memorialized several issues he had with Ennis’s

performance in an email to Chang, seeking guidance on addressing the issues with

Ennis:

14

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 14 of 39
C I asked Wonda to go ahead and issue a written warning to the QA team

member that failed to catch the use of an incorrect ingredient on 8-7. 

This mistake caused a product to be downgraded. The write up was not

issued. I had to do it myself on 8-24.

C During an investigation we found out that metal detection records were

not being documented properly in PlantView. While discussing the

issue with Jan and Wonda, I asked Wonda to have the techs stop

recording metal detection checks in PlantView and to record them on

paper only. A week later there was another issue with a QA member

and metal detection and during that investigation we discovered the

same documentation issue with metal detection checks in PlantView. 

When I asked Wonda why they were still entering them in PlantView,

she stated thatshe thought I intended to only stop recording one specific

metal detection check in PlantView. I asked her again to make sure that

no metal detection checks were entered into PlantView and that all of

them were paper only.

C During both conversations, I explained the reason. Metal

detection checks are time sensitive and require for the actual time

of the check to be recorded. This is not currently possible in

Blountsville due to lack of equipment. In order to have

PlantView record the start and end time of the checks we will

need to have several handheld/portable PlantView units.

C Wonda had failed to issue a single attendance notification to one of her

2 shift techs. This tech had acquired 2 unexcused and several excused

nd

points. Management support attendance policy defines termination at

2 unexcused points. I issued this tech a final attendance notification on

8-24.

C On 8-14, Wonda left the facility to travel to Cullman to have her annual

hearing exam. She did not notify me that she was leaving the grounds.

(PX 26). Ennis did not receive a written warning for these issues; White addressed

these issues with her informally. 

On September 9, 2009, White communicated with Ennisthatshe needed to call

each location listed on an email, request that the location release product to a new

15

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 15 of 39
hold status, and save the release in a folder on her computer. (PX 26). Ennis

improperly sent the release notice not to the locations where the product waslocated,

but back to the individual who had requested the release of the product. (PX 26). 

When White addressed this issue with Ennis, she informed him that she

misunderstood his instruction. (PX 26). Ennis testified that she understood what

White wanted, she just “didn’t know how to go about it.” (Pl. Dep. at 245). Ennis

was not issued a written warning; White addressed this issue with Ennis informally.

During thistime period, there were several job openingsin QA on Ennis’s shift

that needed to be filled, which was making it challenging for Ennis’s shift to

complete all required QA functions. (Pl. Dep. at 229). On September 4, 2009, White

emailed Ennis and instructed her to give the individuals bidding on the QA jobs on

her shift the practice test that night. (PX 26). White followed up with Ennis each

week thereafter and, as of September 28, 2009, Ennis still had not distributed the

practice tests or scheduled the interviews. (Exh. 24 to Pl. Dep.). Ennis received her

first written warning on September 28, 2009 for thisinfraction. (Exh. 24 to Pl. Dep.). 

Although White had discretion to either issue Ennis the written warning or a lesser

discipline, he chose the written warning, fully aware of Tyson’s policy that four

written warnings would result in a termination. (White Dep. at 319).

On September 30, 2009, White conducted Ennis’s performance review for the

16

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 16 of 39
period covering October 2008 through September 2009. (Exh. 29 to Pl. Dep.). 

Because White had only been Ennis’s supervisor for a little over a month, and Ennis’s

former supervisor no longer worked at Tyson, White sought input from Chang and

Cannon (who had previously filled in asinterim QA Manager). (Pl. Dep. at 252-253). 

Jan Casey, the HR Manager, had expected White to look at the previous manager’s

evaluations to complete his evaluation. (Casey Dep. at 133; Casey Decl., ¶ 2).

As part of the review, White evaluated Ennis on the goals that Trujillo had set

for her the year before, including the goal set in September 2008 that Ennis become

proficient in PlantView. (Pl. Dep. at 268). Ennis admits that at the time she received

the “Does Not Meet Expectations” rating, she was not proficient in PlantView, even

though she had worked with the program for over a year and had been sent to a two

day training class. (Pl. Dep. at 261). In the review, White set goals for Ennis which

Ennis admits were appropriate, measurable, objective, and achievable. (Pl. Dep. at

266, 270). 

On November 4, 2009, the Plant Manager emailed Ennisregarding issues with

QA carts not being cleaned and put up each night after the second shift. (PX 26). 

The Plant Manager informed Ennis that the plant had received a negative rating

because of this issue and reminded Ennis that “the issue has been communicated to

you I know.” (PX 26). The Plant Manager also informed Ennis that the Assistant

17

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 17 of 39
Plant Manager had spoken with her QA Techs directly about the issue. (PX 26). The

Plant Manager told Ennis, “I amexpecting you to make sure thissituation is corrected

immediately and I do not want to cover this issue again, it is very simple to solve. If

there is an issue I am unaware of please let me know. Otherwise please get this task

accomplished.” (PX 26). Ennis did not receive any written discipline on this issue. 

But on November 29, 2009, White emailed Ennis informing her that her oil cups and

supplies were dirty when he arrived at the plant that morning. (PX 26). Ennis did not

receive any written warning for this issue.

In November 2009, when Ennis was out due to illness, another employee

found a foreign material investigation report from October 2009 in her desk. (Pl.

Dep. at 290). A foreign material investigation report is usually filled out by

production supervisors when there is an issue regarding possible foreign material

contamination of a product. (Pl. Dep. at 293). The report is given to the QA

Supervisor who should then conduct an investigation and turn the report in to upper

level plant management. (Pl. Dep. at 293). Plaintiff testified about the report

discovered in her office:

Q: But am I right that you did not turn in the incident report from October

12 ?

th

A: They said it was in a personal drawer in a file. I did not know it was in

18

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 18 of 39
there; and while I was gone, they got into my personal drawer and they

said they found it there.

Q: Was it something that you should have turned in?

A: Yes.

(Pl. Dep. at 290-291). Ennis testified that she understood that it was a serious issue

and why she was held responsible:

Q: Can you recognize that if a supervisor finds a foreign material

investigation report in somebody’s desk drawer that should have been

turned in, that that’s a serious problem?

A: Yes.

Q: And can you recognize why they would think that you knew about it?

A: It was in my drawer.

(Pl. Dep. at 296).

When Ennis and White returned fromholiday vacation, White issued Ennis her

second written warning for this incident despite the fact that White was not present

when the document was found. (Exh. 23 to Pl. Dep.; see also White Dep. at 323,

337). 

On December 8, 2009, White was informed that there was an issue with

product that had been released from hold by a production worker (second shift lead)

19

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 19 of 39
on Ennis’s shift. (Exh. 26 to Pl. Dep.). White also learned that the second shift had

written documentation on the back of hold tags and that Ennis did not know anything

about the hold being released, when this is a function that Ennisshould be managing. 

(Exh. 26 to Pl. Dep.). White emailed Ennis instructing her to make sure QA Techs

know that they are responsible for the tags and all of the information that is to be

recorded on the tags. (Exh. 26 to Pl. Dep.). White also instructed Ennis that “QA

needs to verify what is being done, it’s effectiveness and document it. Explain [to the

QA Techs] what is expected, how to do it and hold folks accountable.” (Exh. 26 to

Pl. Dep.). Ennis did not receive any written discipline for this issue.

On December 28, 2009 Ennis wrote an email to White seeking guidance

“moving from technician to supervisor.” (Def. Exh. 30 to Pl. Dep.; Pl. Dep. at 300-

302). Ennis asked White to “help me make a list of what you want me to do each

night or what you expect of me, just something.” (Def. Exh. 30 to Pl. Dep.). Ennis

told White thatshe was “not going to make any excuses” and “should have known by

now not to let my personal judgment get in the way of my professional ones. I am

just being myself and I have realized that I must be more professional.” (Def. Exh.

30 to Pl. Dep.). Ennis further stated: “I am willing to do whatever it takes. I take my

job very seriously. I am not a lazy person, I have always tried to do my job right.” 

White did not respond in writing to the email, but told Ennis that he thought it was

20

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 20 of 39
in her best interest to step down from the supervisor position. (Pl. Dep. at 313). 

Ennis was insulted by that response and rejected the offer of stepping down. (Pl.

Dep. at 314). 

On January 6, 2010, White learned that Ennis had failed to send a required

feather summary report that was due on a weekly basis. (PX 26). Ennis responded:

“I just forgot no other excuse. Matt [Crowe] and I got working on the [PlantView]

Query and just forgot.” (PX 26). White did not issue any written discipline to Ennis

for forgetting to send the required report.

However, on January 7, 2010, White issued Ennis her third disciplinary

warning. (PX 4; Pl. Dep. at 298). This warning stated: “On 1-6-10 you QA data

verified several checks in PlantView as correct. These checks contained data errors

that should have been corrected prior to completing the verification.” (PX 4). Ennis

testified that this error did not have the usual alarm to alert her to the fact that there

was an error, so she skimmed through it instead of checking for all data errors. (Pl.

Dep. at 298). Both Ennis and the QA Tech who actually committed the error were

written up for the error. (White Dep. at 308). 

6

Brandy Woods, the employee who built the report and also did not catch the error, was not 6

written up for this incident. Brandy Woods is thirty years old. (White Dep. at 308). 

On the day of the incident, White sent his supervisor, Vivian Chang, an email which clearly

stated that all three employees were involved in the report and none of them caught the error. (White

Dep. at 313). White provided no rationale for his failure to discipline Woods other than it was his

“discretion” to do so. (White Dep. at 313). 

21

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 21 of 39
On or about January 10, 2010, Ennis spoke with White about stepping back

down to the QA Tech job, a job in which she had performed well. (Pl. Dep. at 313-

314). Ennis told White that she would think about it, but then decided against it. (Pl.

Dep. at 313-314). Eight days later, on January 15, 2010, White responded to Ennis’s

email of December 28, 2009 with a formal Memorandum. “Over the next 60 days

you are expected to improve on several aspects of your department, and develop an

action plan to continue to improve on all aspects of your responsibility.” (Def. Exh.

31 to Pl. Dep.). White met with Ennis and instructed her that she was “expected to

review all PlantView data for 2 shift before leaving for the night so that reports can nd

be pulled the next morning. This data must be error free and any errors corrected

prior to leaving for the day. This information is provided to our customer.” (Exh. 31

to Pl. Dep.). Finally, White directs Ennis that “[a]s the QA Supervisor you will be

held responsible for your actions and the performance of your team.” (Exh. 31 to Pl.

Dep.). Although Ennis described the January 15 meeting as positive, she did not feel

as if White gave her enough guidance on how to achieve her goals. (Pl. Dep. at 316). 

Just a few days into the 60 day developmental plan, on January 26, 2010, Ennis

received a call fromWhite who wasin Atlanta in a meeting with Wendy’s upper-level

management and Tyson QA executives. (Pl. Dep. at 322). While at the meeting,

Wendy’s requested some QA data so that a decision could be made regarding the

22

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 22 of 39
product at the meeting. (Pl. Dep. at 322). Ennis was unable to provide the

information as needed and testified about the incident as follows:

Q: Was it wrong for Jason to call and ask his QA supervisor to provide the

data that he needed at the meeting?

A: No. But what was wrong was him not trying to explain it where I could

get it to him. He could have stayed calm and – I’m not dumb. I could

have went through it.

Q: Why do you think he was not calm?

A: Because he wanted it right then.

Q: Why do you think he wanted it right then?

A: Because he needed it right then.

Q: Yes. Because he was sitting there with his bosses and all the Wendy’s

upper management, and they wanted it then, right?

A: Right.

(Pl. Dep. at 329-330).

Ennis testified that at first she had a computer issue, but then she was able to

access the data but still did not cut and paste the data correctly into the report as

needed:

Q: But then you got [the computer] to work and you were able to highlight,

23

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 23 of 39
cut and paste?

A: What I found, yes.

Q: But it wasn’t right, was it?

A: Right.

Q: And that was your inability to do it, right?

A: For untrained, yes.

Q: Your testimony is you were never trained how to highlight, cut, and

paste out of PlantView into a spreadsheet; is that your testimony?

A: What I’m saying is, you had to go to another area, get it out of the data,

then you had to look up the dates and all that, which I was not trained

for, because that’s what he told me Matthew and Brandy would do, was

put that in there so you could bring it over to the report. And I asked for

training. I asked Brandy to help me more than once. 

(Pl. Dep. at 331). In the end, White had to stall with the Wendy’s executives, borrow

a computer from someone else who was at the meeting, and cut and paste the needed

data himself:7

Vivian Chang, White’s boss who was also present at the meeting, testified that Wendy’s 7

does not like the PlantView system and has suggested that Tyson should use a better computerized

system, so when the system did not work correctly in the meeting, it caused embarrassment for

White. (Chang Dep. at 167). According to Chang, this was a “bad meeting” generally, not solely

because of Ennis’s failure to retrieve the requested data. (Chang Dep. at 143). 

24

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 24 of 39
Q: And then did he have to find another way to get the data that Wendy’s

upper management and Tyson upper management needed right then?

A: Yes.

Q: He could not rely on you to get it for him; is that right?

A: Correct.

(Pl. Dep. at 331-332; White Dep. at 364).

Ennis was issued her final Disciplinary Action Form by White on January 28,

2010 as a result of this incident. (White Dep. at 408). Attached to the Disciplinary

Form was a memo written by White stating: “In 2009 you received training in

PlantView administration and thus should have had no issues with pulling data.”8

(PX 6). White testified that he understood that Ennis had asked him for help with the

PlantView system prior to this incident, and acknowledged that he knew Ennis was

struggling with the program when he called her from the meeting and asked her to

pull the information. (White Dep. at 358). 

9

Despite White’s allegation in the memo that he walked her through the steps, Ennis disputes 8

this account and testified that White did not walk her through the steps. (Pl. Dep. at 327). 

 According to Jan Casey of Human Resources, it took some employees longer than others 9

to understand the PlantView system. (Casey Dep. at 65). Casey testified that she instructed

managers to never write someone up the first time on PlantView because of the problems employees

were having. (Casey Dep. at 58). Casey acknowledged that it is common to retrain employees on

various topics and that she is “not going to give up on anybody” and if someone is asking for training

they ought to be given the training. (CaseyDep. at 67-68). Casey expected management to consider

whether an employee had been given additional training after a request before writing the employee

up. (Casey Dep. at 68-69). 

25

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 25 of 39
After Ennis received this fourth warning, her employment was terminated by

White. Vicky Craig, Human Resources Clerk, testified that White notified her that

he had given Ennis her fourth write-up and that her employment needed to be

terminated. (Craig Dep. at 92-93). White has never terminated anyone else in his

tenure had Blountsville and Ennis was the oldest member of management. (Casey

Dep. at 110). Ennis was replaced by Sherry Bell, a younger employee that White

hired. (Casey Dep. at 301-302).

Ennis filed for unemployment compensation benefits with the Alabama

Department of Industrial Relations and was awarded benefits. (PX 25). 

IV. Analysis

A. Count One – Disability Discrimination

Count One of the Complaint alleges disability discrimination under the

Americans with Disabilities Act. However, in footnote 1 of her Brief (Doc. #37) in

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff notes that she

has “determined she cannot meet the burdens established by the ADA and concedes

this claim.” (Doc. #37 at 1, n.1). Therefore, Count One of the Complaint is due to

be dismissed in its entirety.

26

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 26 of 39
B. Count Two – Discrimination Because of Age

1. Overview of the ADEA and Burden Shifting Analysis

Count Two ofthe Complaint alleges that Plaintiff Ennis has been discriminated

against on the basis of her age. (See generally Doc. #1, Count Two). The Age

Discrimination in Employment Act provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for an

employer . . . to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise

discriminate against any individual with respect to his [or her] compensation, terms,

conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age.” 29

U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). To fall under the protections of the ADEA, an employee must be

“at least 40 years of age.” 29 U.S.C. § 631(a). The Eleventh Circuit uses the

framework established in McDonnell Douglas and Burdine to evaluate ADEA claims

that are based upon circumstantial evidence of discrimination. See Thomas v. 10

Humana Health Plan, Inc., 457 Fed. Appx. 819 (11th Cir. 2012); see also Cofield v.

Goldkist, Inc., 267 F.3d 1264, 1268 n. 6 (11th Cir. 2001) (“Although the McDonnell

Douglas framework originally applied in Title VII cases, it is now widely accepted

that the framework applies to claims of discrimination under the ADEA as well.”).

Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff first has the burden of

Plaintiff concedes that she has no direct evidence of age discrimination and agrees that the 10

McDonnell Douglas framework applies to her claim. (See Doc. #37 at 18).

27

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 27 of 39
establishing a prima facie case of age discrimination by showing that she is: (1) a

member of a protected class; (2) qualified for her current position; (3) subject to an

adverse employment action; and (4) treated less favorably than a similarly-situated

employee outside her protected group. See Maynard v. Bd. of Regents of the Div. of

Univs. of the Fla. Dept. of Educ., 342 F.3d 1281, 1289 (11th Cir. 2003). Once the

plaintiff has shown a prima facie case and, thereby, has raised the presumption of

discrimination, the burden of production shifts to the employer to articulate a

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Wascura v. City of S. 11

Miami, 257 F.3d 1238, 1242 (11th Cir. 2001). The employer “need not persuade the

court that it was actually motivated by the proffered reasons.” Burdine, 450 U.S. at

254-55; see Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1024. If the employer satisfies that burden by

articulating one or more such reasons, then the presumption of discrimination fails

and the burden of production again shifts to the plaintiff to offer evidence sufficient

for a reasonable jury to conclude that the employer’s supposedly legitimate reason is

merely a pretext for illegal discrimination. Where the defendant articulates 12

See Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1032 (A subjective reason is a legally sufficient, legitimate,

11

nondiscriminatory reason if the defendant articulates a clear and reasonably specific factual basis

upon which the employer based its subjective opinion.).

If the proffered reason is one that might motivate a reasonable employer, a plaintiff cannot 12

recast the reason but must meet it head on and rebut it. Simply quarreling with that reason is not

sufficient. Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1030.

28

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 28 of 39
multiple, reasonable, legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons, plaintiff must rebut

each of defendant’s proffered reasons. See Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1024-25. 

At all times during this analysis, when a plaintiff alleges disparate treatment

such as termination of employment, liability depends on whether the plaintiff’s age

actually motivated the employer’s decision. See Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507

U.S. 604, 610 (1993). Accordingly, the age of the plaintiff must have actually played

a role in the employer’s decision making process and had a determinative influence

on the outcome. See Bray v. Paetec Communications, Slip Copy, (Jan. 9, 2014)

(citing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 141 (2000)).

2. Legitimate Non-Discriminatory Reasons and Pretext

Defendant Tyson has conceded, for purposes of summary judgment, that

Plaintiff can establish the prima facie case of age discrimination. (See Doc. #32 at

26) (“Defendants will assume arguendo, and for purposes ofsummaryjudgment only,

that Plaintiff has established a prima facie case.”). Tyson has articulated a legitimate,

non-discriminatory reason for the termination of Ennis’s employment – “her poor job

performance that resulted in four written warningsin a 12 month time period.” (Doc.

#32 at 26). Therefore, to avoid summary judgment, the burden shifts back to Plaintiff

to “present evidence that [the employer’s] legitimate reasons were not what actually

motivated its conduct.” Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519, 1531 (11th

29

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 29 of 39
Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). That is, Plaintiff must demonstrate “such weaknesses,

implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherences, or contradictions in the employer’s

legitimate reasons that a reasonable factfinder could find unworthy of credence.” 

Combs, 106 F.3d at 1538.

Ennis focuses her pretext argument in relation to each of the four specific

warnings issued in a twelve-month time period because “if any one of these

disciplinary actions was invalid, Plaintiff would not have been terminated.” (Doc.

#37 at 20, 24) (“For each of the warnings issued to Plaintiff, there is substantial

evidence of pretext. A genuine issue of material fact exists asto the pretextual nature

of each proffered reason for Plaintiff’s discipline.”). She assertsthatJason White, her

immediate supervisor who issued the disciplines, “was on a mission” to fire her

because of her age. (See Doc. #37 at 20). 

Each of the pretext arguments for each of the warnings is considered in turn.

a. September 28, 2009 Warning

On September 28, 2009, White gave Plaintiff a written warning for failing to

distribute practice tests and schedule testing interviews for two open shift positions. 

(PX 2; see also discussion supra Section III.E). Ennis believes that this written

warning was a pretext for discrimination because: (1) at the time White told Plaintiff

to schedule practice tests and interviews, an audit was occurring in the QA

30

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 30 of 39
Department, which was stressful for QA employees; and (2) White did not issue

Ennis a counseling for this error, asrequired by Tyson policy, but instead wrote Ennis

up formally. (See Doc. #37 at 21). Tyson counters that Ennis does not dispute that

she failed to perform this duty as instructed, nor does she dispute White’s testimony

that he repeatedly instructed her to accomplish this task. (See Doc. #38 at 7). White

testified that Plaintiff’s failure to schedule the tests “warranted a written warning [as

opposed to a counseling] due to the number of times that I had asked Wonda to

complete this task.” (White Dep. at 317). 

Plaintiff’s belief thatshe should not have been issued a formal written warning

for this infraction because it occurred during a stressful time in the QA Department

does not establish pretext. It is well settled that a plaintiff cannot establish pretext by

substituting her business judgment for that of the employer. See Chapman v. AI

Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1030 (11th Cir. 2000). “Provided that the proffered reason

is one that might motivate a reasonable employer, an employee must meet that reason

head on and rebut it, and the employee cannot succeed by simply quarreling with the

wisdom of that reason.” Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1030. That is, whether or not Ennis

actually “deserved,” in her opinion, this written warning, “is irrelevant to the pretext

question.” Frazier v. Doosan Infracore Intern., Inc., 479 Fed. Appx. 925, 934 (11th

Cir. June 26, 2012). The court is not to analyze “whether employment decisions are

31

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 31 of 39
prudent or fair.” Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354, 1361

(11th Cir. 1999). The relevant question is whether White’s dissatisfaction with

[Ennis’s] performance was actually a cover for discrimination. See id. at 934; see

also Bray v. Paetec Communications, Inc., Slip Copy, at *5 (Jan. 9, 2014)

(“[Plaintiff’s] failure to comply with job expectations gave [the supervisor] a

reasonable basis [for disciplining Plaintiff]. . . . [disciplining Plaintiff] was not an

antagonistic or unreasonable action . . .”).

The alleged failure of Tyson to follow policy on issuing a counseling before

a written warning does not help Ennis leap that hurdle. As supervisor, White made

clear during the course of his deposition that Tyson management had discretion

whether to follow the policy on issuing a counseling before issuing a written warning. 

(White Dep. at ). Jan Casey, a Tyson Complex Human Resources Manager, testified

that there are categories of discipline and that the Blountsville policy is not read as

if requiring certain steps such as verbal counseling prior to a written warning. (Casey

Dep. at 231-233; see also Craig Dep. at 109-110 (“[S]ometimes they don’t do a

counseling . . .”). And “if management has discretion as to whether to follow the

discipline policy, then a failure to follow the policy does not show pretext.” Parrott

v. PNC Bank, Nat. Ass’n, – F. Supp.2d – (N.D. Ala. 2013) (quoting Ritchie v. Indus.

Steel, Inc., 426 Fed. Appx. 867, 873 (11th Cir. 2011). 

32

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 32 of 39
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff has not shown pretext for the written

warning that was issued to her on September 28, 2009.

b. December 11, 2009 Warning

On December 11, 2009, White again issued Ennis a written warning. (PX 3;

see also discussion supra Section III.E). This warning states that Ennis “failed to

turn in a foreign material investigation in a timely manner. The report was for an

incident on October 12 and was found in her desk drawer in the middle of

November.” (PX 3). Ennis believes that this written warning was a pretext for

discrimination because: (1) White did not document the incident, did not investigate

the incident, and could provide no information or documentation asto who found this

alleged report or when or where it was found; (2) Plaintiff was not at work on the day

the report was found in her desk and Tyson can provide no documentation as to any

basis for the discipline. (See Doc. #37 at 21-22).

But Plaintiff’s belief that someone “planted” the report in her desk is an

unsupported, speculative belief. White testified that he investigated the facts

primarily by questioning Ennis about the report. (See White Dep. at 325, 330, 337). 

He decided to discipline Ennis for the incident by issuing her the written warning,

even though he could have done less than write her up. (See White Dep. at 326). 

Once again, White decided to exercise his discretion by issuing the written warning. 

33

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 33 of 39
This business judgment may not have been wise considering the sparse information

gleaned during the investigation, but as a business decision it is outside the purview

of the court. See Parrott v. PNC Bank, Nat. Ass’n, – F. Supp.2d – (N.D. Ala. 2013)

(quoting Ritchie v. Indus. Steel, Inc., 426 Fed. Appx. 867, 873 (11th Cir. 2011); see

also Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354, 1361 (11th Cir.

1999). White was clearly displeased with Ennis’s performance and Ennis herself

testified that the report should have been turned in, that failing to do so was a serious

problem, and that she understood why White reached the conclusion that Ennis was

at fault. (Pl. Dep. at 296). Despite the fact that Ennis maintains her innocence, “it is

irrelevant. [She] must, instead, produce evidence demonstrating that [White] did not

in good faith believe that allegations, but relied on them in bad faith pretext to

discriminate against [her] because of [her] age.” Waggoner v. City of Garland, Tex.,

987 F.2d 1160, 1166 (5th Cir. 1993). There is no evidence that White did not actually

believe that the failure to turn in the report was Ennis’s deficiency, nor that he wrote

her up for this infraction because of her age. See Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555,

1565 (11th Cir. 1997).

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff has not shown pretext for the written

warning that was issued to her on December 11, 2009.

34

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 34 of 39
c. January 7, 2010 Warning

On January 7, 2010, White issued a third formal discipline to Ennis. Ennis had

verified certain data entered into the PlantView data systemwithout actually checking

that data. (PX 4). “These checks contained data errors that should have been

corrected prior to completing the verification.” (PX 4). Jeff Nichols, who was in his

forties but thirteen years younger than Ennis, was also disciplined for this error but

13

Brandy Woods, age thirty and a production supervisor, was not disciplined. (See

Doc. #37 at 22). Plaintiff argues that “[t]he difference in treatment Plaintiff received

from that of [younger] Woods is compelling evidence of age discrimination.” (Doc.

#37 at 23). 

The problem with Plaintiff’s pretext argument is that she was the QA

Supervisor ultimately responsible for this data being accurate. As such, she was

required to perform data checks and verify that certain data entered into the

PlantView system was accurate – no one else held that responsibility. To that end, 14

Ennis certified that data was accurate, but admittedly just “skimmed” through it and

automatically verified it as correct. (Pl. Dep. at 298). The clearly inaccurate report

caused upper management to question “[h]ow in the world does a check get

 Jeff Nichols was the QA Tech that first entered the data incorrectly. 

13

At the time of this error, Ennis had been performing PlantView verifications for at least 14

six months. (Pl. Dep. at 524). 

35

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 35 of 39
completed like this and no one notice, much less send it to the customer?” (PX 26). 

Ennis’s error cannot properly be compared to the error made by Brandy Woods. 

Woods merely “built the report and sent it without catching it.” (White Dep. at 15

310). See Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1562 (11th Cir. 1997) (“To make a

comparison ofthe plaintiff’s treatment to that of non-minority employees, the plaintiff

Ennis makes much of the fact that Brandy Woods was not terminated for what Plaintiff 15

believes to be a more serious infraction than Plaintiff’s. (see Doc. #37 at 15-17). The infraction,

while not to be undermined as to its importance, was wholly different than the infractions which

caused Ennis to be written up and ultimately terminated.

In March 2011, White sent Woods to Arkansas for Tyson training. (White Dep. at 225). For

her business trip, Woods rented a car with a drivers’license that had been suspended. (PX 18; Casey

Dep., Exh. Bates labeled 01860). Although Plaintiff contends that Woods “should have known” that

her license was suspended (see Doc. #37 at 15, n.7), Woods wrote a statement that she did not know

that her license remained suspended because “I had paid everything they told me to pay so I thought

I was ok and had my license back.” (Casey Dep., Exh. Bates labeled 01860). 

Driving on the suspended license on her work trip, Woods was pulled over for reckless

driving and the rental vehicle was impounded. (Casey Dep., Exh. Bates labeled 01868). Woods

contacted White after the vehicle was impounded and told him that everything would be taken care

of with the Tyson Travel Department and the rental company. (Casey Dep., Exh. Bates labeled

01868; White Dep. at 250). Woods subsequently turned in a mileage voucher to Tyson for

reimbursement (since she resumed the trip using her personal car), but also submitted paperwork for

Tyson to pay for the rental car that had been impounded. (White Dep. at 255, 257). Woods also

requested expense money for her trip in addition to having Tyson billed directly for her hotel

expenses. (See Woods Dep. at 36-38; see also Casey Dep. at 329, 331). 

In response to this incident, Woods was suspended for five days and given a final written

warning for the misconduct. Woods understood that any additional misconduct would result in her

termination. (Woods Dep. at 97). White had no involvement in the decision on the discipline that

Woods received for this incident. (White Dep. at 517). 

Although Woods’ level of discipline may not have been sufficient in Ennis’s mind, there is

no dispute that White was not involved in determining the level of discipline to be issued to Woods

for this incident. In fact, White was disciplined for not inquiring more into the situation when it

occurred. (Casey Dep. at 342-343). Therefore, no inference can be drawn in an attempt to compare

White’s disciplines of Ennis compared to that of Woods. See Silvera v. Orange Cnty. Sch. Bd., 244

F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[D]ifferences in treatment by different supervisors or decision

makers can seldom be a basis for a viable claim of discrimination.”).

36

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 36 of 39
must show that he and the employees are similarly situated in all relevant respects.”). 

She did not verify, with her signature, the data in the PlantView system as accurate.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff has not shown pretext for the written

warning that was issued to her on January 7, 2010.

d. January 28, 2010 Warning

Ennis received a fourth and final written warning when she was unable to

respond to a query for customer data from White. (Pl. Dep. at 507; see also PX 5, 6). 

Plaintiff believes that this write-up was a pretext for age discrimination because: (1)

White knew that Ennis was struggling with PlantView when he called her and asked

her to pull up the information; (2) White had provided Ennis with no additional

training on PlantView, despite her request for it and management’s willingness to

give additional training on the system; and (3) many employees had a hard time with

PlantView and even certain customers wanted Tyson to use a better system. (See

Doc. #37 at 23-24). 

The fact that the system was difficult, not entirely user-friendly, and that many

struggled with it does not negate the fact that Ennis can point to no other QA

Supervisor who was unable to perform the function in PlantView that was required. 

(Pl. Dep. at 507, 509). White was embarrassed and frustrated by Ennis’s inability to

retrieve the data (White Dep. at 475), and was within his purview to discipline Ennis

37

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 37 of 39
for failing to perform up to her job expectations. Bray v. Paetec Communications,

Inc., Slip Copy, at *5 (Jan. 9, 2014) (“[Plaintiff’s] failure to comply with job

expectations gave [the supervisor] a reasonable basis [for disciplining Plaintiff]. . . 

[disciplining Plaintiff] was not an antagonistic or unreasonable action . . .”). Ennis

readily admits that she was unable to glean the information as requested by White,

despite the fact that she had two days of formal training on the system and had access

to the administrative manual, on-line training, and technical support. (Pl. Dep. at 46;

White Dep. at 368-369). Whether it was wise or prudent for White to issue Ennisthis

final discipline without first allowing her additional training on PlantView is not for

this court to decide. Ennis could not perform her job in accordance with the

company’s expectations, and that is why she wasissued the final written warning that

led to her termination with the company.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff has not shown pretext for the written

warning that was issued to her on January 28, 2010.

IV. Conclusion

Jason White may have been “on a mission” to terminate Ennis’s employment

with Tyson, but there is no evidence that such purported mission was due to anything

other that Ennis’s performance issues. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion (Doc. #29)for

Summary Judgment is GRANTED. A separate order will be entered dismissing all

38

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 38 of 39
claims against defendant Tyson Foods, Inc.

DONE this the 31st day of March, 2014.

 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

39

Case 2:11-cv-03502-JHH Document 46 Filed 03/31/14 Page 39 of 39