Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_11-cv-00397/USCOURTS-alnd-4_11-cv-00397-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benjamin Moore & Co., Paints
Counter Claimant
Tracy Sanders
Counter Defendant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MIDDLE DIVISION

TRACY SANDERS

Plaintiff,

vs.

BENJAMIN MOORE & CO.,

PAINTS, a business or corporation,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-0397-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, Tracy Sanders, an African American, asserts claims against her

former employer, Benjamin Moore & Co. (“Benjamin Moore”), for racial

discrimination and retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. (“Title VII”); interference

and retaliation pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §

2601 et seq. (“FMLA”); a retaliatory hostile work environment pursuant to Title VII,

§ 1981, the FMLA, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 84 Stat.

1590, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq.; and a supplemental state-law claim,

asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, for negligent or wanton supervision.

1

 

Benjamin Moore asserts counterclaims against plaintiff for constructive trust,

1

See doc. no. 37 (Third Amended Complaint).

FILED

 2015 Mar-31 PM 03:41

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 1 of 108
equitable lien, restitution, equitable offset, or other equitable relief pursuant to 29

U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3); unjust enrichment pursuant to federal common law; and

attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g).

The case currently is before the court on Benjamin Moore’s motion for

summary judgment on all claims, including its counterclaims,

2

and motion to strike

plaintiff’s evidentiary submission in opposition to summary judgment.

3 Upon

consideration of the pleadings, briefs, and evidentiary submissions, this court

concludes that the motion to strike is due to be denied, and the motion for summary

judgment is due to be granted, but only in part.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that a court “shall grant summary

judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In

other words, summary judgment is proper “after adequate time for discovery and

upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the

existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will

bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 

2

 Doc. no. 64. 

3

 Doc. no. 76.

2

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 2 of 108
“In making this determination, the court must review all evidence and make all

reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.” Chapman

v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Haves v.

City of Miami, 52 F.3d 918, 921 (11th Cir. 1995)). Inferences in favor of the nonmoving party are not unqualified, however. “[A]n inference is not reasonable if it is

only a guess or a possibility, for such an inference is not based on the evidence, but

is pure conjecture and speculation.” Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home, 692 F.2d

1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 1983) (alteration supplied). Moreover,

[t]he mere existence of some factual dispute will not defeat

summary judgment unless that factual dispute is material to an issue

affecting the outcome of the case. The relevant rules of substantive law

dictate the materiality of a disputed fact. A genuine issue of material

fact does not exist unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the

nonmoving party for a reasonable jury to return a verdict in its favor.

Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1023 (quoting Haves, 52 F.3d at 921) (emphasis and alteration

supplied). See also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986)

(asking “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require

submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a

matter of law”).

3

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 3 of 108
II. SUMMARY OF FACTS4

Benjamin Moore is a national manufacturer and retailer of high-quality paints

and coatings,

5

 operating five paint manufacturing facilities in the United States and

one manufacturing facility in Canada.6 The company maintains an Equal

Employment Opportunity Policy and a zero tolerance harassment and retaliation

policy,

7

as well as an ADA policy which requires employees who wish to make a

request for accommodation to cooperate with Human Resources in arriving upon a

reasonable accommodation.

8 At all relevant times, Elizabeth Edwards, an African

American, was Benjamin Moore’s Human Resources Director.9

Benjamin Moore hired plaintiff on October 8, 2007, as a Controls Engineer at

its Pell City, Alabama facility.10 The Benjamin Moore Manufacturing Payroll

Authorization Request Form indicated that plaintiff was originally scheduled 86.67

4 The following statements are the “facts” for summary judgment purposes only, and may not

be the actual facts. See Cox v. Adm’r U.S. Steel &Carnegie Pension Fund, 17 F.3d 1386, 1400 (11th

Cir. 1994). All reasonable doubts have been resolved in favor of plaintiff, the nonmoving party. See

Info. Sys. & Networks Corp. v. City of Atlanta, 281 F.3d 1220, 1224 (11th Cir. 2002). 

5 Doc. no. 66-20 (Recca Declaration), ¶ 3. Dennis Recca was Benjamin Moore’s Lead

Engineer. Id. ¶ 1.

6

 Doc. no. 66-7 (Recca Deposition), at 11-12.

7 Doc. no. 66-21 (Edwards Declaration), ¶¶ 3-4; 9-10. Liz Edwards is an African American

and Benjamin Moore’s Director of Human Resources. Id. ¶ 1.

8

Id. ¶¶ 5-6.

9

 Doc. no. 66-10 (Edwards Deposition), at 5.

10

 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 21, 37-38.

4

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 4 of 108
hours per every semi-monthly pay cycle, with no other hours listed.

11 On-call duties

were not in plaintiff’s original job description.

12

 

At the time of plaintiff’s hire, there were four other engineers working in the

“Controls Group,” a subset of Benjamin Moore’sEngineering Department.13 Plaintiff

wasthe only engineer at the Pell City facility,

14

and her primary responsibility was to

program controls that affected the dispensing of paint into Benjamin Moore’s

manufacturing system.

15 As a Controls Engineer, plaintiff did not have to be

physically present at the plant to perform her job.

16 She initially reported to the

Engineering Department Manager, Art Mengon.

17 Mengon permitted plaintiff to

work under a Flexible Work Arrangement (“FWA”), whereby plaintiff could work

11 Doc. no. 66-12 (Exhibits to Pallozzi Deposition), at ECF 23. “ECF” is the acronym for

“Electronic Case Filing,” a system that allows parties to file and serve documents electronically. See

Atterbury v. Foulk, No. C-07-6256 MHP, 2009 WL 4723547, *6 n.6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2009). 

Bluebook Rule 7.1.4 permits citations to the “page numbers generated by the ECF header.” Wilson

v. Fullwood, 772 F. Supp. 2d 246, 257 n.5 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing The Bluebook: A Uniform System

of Citation R. B. 7.1.4, at 21 (Columbia Law Review Ass’n et al., 19th ed. 2010)). Even so, the

Bluebook recommends “against citation to ECF pagination in lieu of original pagination.” Wilson,

772 F. Supp. 2d at 257 n.5. Thus, unless stated otherwise, this court will cite the original pagination

in the parties’ pleadings. When the court cites to pagination generated by the ECF header, it will,

as here, precede the page number with the letters “ECF.”

12

 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 73.

13

 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 74, 77-78, 91, 96.

14

Id. at 31.

15

 Doc. no. 66-20 (Recca Declaration), at 2-3, ¶ 8.

16

 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 94-95; doc. no. 66-7 (Recca Deposition), at 23.

17

 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 38.

5

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 5 of 108
from home at all times.

18

At the beginning of 2008, plaintiff received an overall performance rating of

“3 - Meeting All Expectations” in her 2007 Performance Review Form, and Mengon

noted that plaintiff had “[g]ood, positive feedback regarding [her] interactions with

others,” and that “[p]ersonal observations, as well as from limited feedback, indicate

[plaintiff] will be a solid addition to our electrical & controls group. While her short

time with us in 2007 was too brief to substantially impact the business, her

preparation has been as expected to contribute significantly through the next year.”19

At some point in 2008, Art Mengon left Benjamin Moore, and Jesse Singh

became plaintiff’s direct manager.

20 Thereafter, Benjamin Moore experienced a

significant downturn in business, forcing the company to implement a reduction-inforce (“RIF”).21 Some employees left Benjamin Moore, and the company terminated

others, resulting in the Controls Group being reduced to one Controls Engineer —

plaintiff.22 Plaintiff volunteered to take on additional work “because there was no one

else to do the work.”23 Her role expanded to include project management, system

18 Doc. no. 66-21 (Edwards Declaration), at 3, ¶ 9. Under a FWA, an employee may be

permitted to work offsite during agreed hours, under certain management imposed conditions. Id.

19

 Doc. no. 66-12 (Exhibits to Pallozzi Deposition), at ECF 32-36.

20

 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 95.

21

 Doc. no. 66-10 (Edwards Deposition), at 14.

22

 Doc. no. 66-10 (Edwards Deposition), at 14.

23

 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 48.

6

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 6 of 108
back-ups, contractor and automation file management, and automation support

programming.

24 Benjamin Moore also required plaintiff to provide 24/7 on-call,

after-hours support for all of the company’s facilities.

25

 Essentially, this meant that

in the event that production lines malfunctioned at any of the five manufacturing

facilities, plaintiff was required to be available to resolve problems remotely.

26 Most

after-hours emergency calls were resolved quickly by Gideon John, an IT employee,

because they involved first-level IT technical support, but plaintiff was responsible

for more technical malfunctions that could not be resolved by John.

27

 Plaintiff was

the only engineer to provide on-call support after the RIF because she was the only

controls engineer, and process engineers did not support plant equipment.

28

At the beginning of 2009, plaintiff received an overall performance rating of

“3 - Meeting All Expectations” in her 2008 Performance Review Form, and Singh

noted that plaintiff had “cordialrapport and positivedemeanor within the Engineering

group and those within Pell City and Mesquite,” that she was “an individual with

initiative and drive,” and that Singh expected Benjamin Moore to recognize plaintiff

24 Doc. no. 66-7 (Growth Form), at ECF 28-36; doc. no. 66-12 (Exhibits to Pallozzi

Deposition), at ECF 32-36.

25

Id. at 73-77, 99.

26

Id. at 83.

27

 Doc. no. 66-16 (Yama Deposition), at 31-33.

28

 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 74-75, 85-86, 112.

7

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 7 of 108
“as our controls expert and will seek [her] involvement in project work,

troubleshooting plant issues and providing direction for our controls opportunities

looking to our future.”29

Joseph Dotzman, a Caucasian and Benjamin Moore’s

Manufacturing Director, included the following comments in plaintiff’s 2008

Performance Review:

The year end review for [plaintiff] highlights some issues around

communication that are valid in her assessment. However, since Jessie

did not supervise [plaintiff] for the whole year, the review is not as

encompassing as it could be. [Plaintiff] did help with tasks outside of

her original job scope in the last quarter of 2008 when the department

shrank unexpectedly down to a single controls person — herself. Most

Benjamin Moore employees were tasked with doing more during 2008

as reductions in force and cost saving initiatives compelled us to multitask and be more productive as employees. On paper and in limited

practice, [plaintiff] took on more than her role originally called, but she

did show some weaknesses in communication and working with others

that need to be addressed regardless of how many extra duties she

performs. These weaknesses are in areas of basic expectations of

teamwork and project management. That said, discussions I have held

with manufacturing managers, engineers, and other associatedBenjamin

Moore personnel have satisfied me that the critiques outlined by Jessie

are accurate and also that the rating of “3 - Meets All Expectations” is

appropriate. Now that [plaintiff] has had more time within the Benjamin

Moore culture, those expectations will certainly be raised for 2009. I

expect [plaintiff] to accept the critiques offered by Jessie and to work on

those areas of improvementso thatshe continuesto meet, and hopefully

exceed, expectations in the year to come.

Doc. no. 66-3 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 38. Plaintiff added the

following comments to her 2008 performance review:

29

 Doc. no. 66-3 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 34-39.

8

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 8 of 108
I feel that engineering leadership strives to cultivate negativity through

its performance management system (without factual examples to

support their opinion). The communication weakness that Joe

mentioned, “must be addressed,” stems from one plant’s version of a

1:00 am automation support phone call. This call (12/08) was not,

subsequently, discussed with me until my review (2/09) and no other

supporting examples were discussed with me during the year. This was

also pointed out by my HR business partner. Also, there were no

specific or defined communication goals given to evaluate me against. 

Therefore, true or not, can one incident be fairly used to evaluate an

entire year of performance?

My previous manager, Art Mengon, repeatedly, communicated a vision

and strategy for controls, and evaluated me based on specific goals and

measures. He, effectively, used the performance management system

by, constructively, pointing out things to improve upon but he also

highlighted superior performance. In my 2007 performance review, Art

stated: “Good, positive feedback regarding your interactions with

others.” However, the current management team sought out and

reviewed with me negative information but made no reference to my

performance on projects that were successfully completed by me that

met customer requirements.

Joe stated that he is “not sure” how I am doing in the controls group but

monthly progress reports were submitted by me and he participated in

project review meetings where my projects were discussed. Therefore,

how can he believe that Jessie’s original assessment of me was accurate

when he stated that he was “not sure” how I was doing in controls? His

statement, also, was not substantiated by HR because if their

investigation had not yielded evidence to the contrary, there would not

have been a basis for assigning me to another manager or re-writing my

2008 performance review.

In conclusion, the performance management system is not used,

correctly, by current management; it reflects a defensive approach and

negative overtures. Instead, it should represent an assessment against

specific measurable, actionable, reasonable, time bound goals that are

9

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 9 of 108
established at the beginning of the year. Otherwise, they can continue

to do, exactly, they have done here, arbitrarily, select things that were

not included in your goals at the beginning of the year and/or evaluate

you against tasks that you did not know you were going to be evaluated

against. I started automation support in August, how was it ever

included in my goals at the beginning of 2008? Thank you.

Id. at ECF 38-39.

In April 2009, the following email correspondence occurred between plaintiff,

Singh, and Dotzman:

From: Singh, Jessie

Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 12:55 PM

To: Sanders, Tracy

Subject: Monthly Catch-up

Hi Tracy,

I included a few talking points for our monthly catch-up. You can

certainly additional [sic] agenda items as well. I need to return a phone

call so I will call you at 2:15.

Thanks,

Jessie

. . .

From: Sanders, Tracy

Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:46 AM

To: Singh, Jessie

Cc: Dotzman, Joseph; Eiler, Susan

Subject: RE: Monthly Catch-up - Personnel Issue - CONFIDENTIAL

Importance: High

10

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 10 of 108
Jessie,

We will have to schedule our meeting after the Dallas start up because

I am covered up right now and my time is very limited. I can not begin

to address the items that you want to discuss until I finish this start up

which requires my full attention. However, I really did not expect you

to call because time and time again, you have shown no respect for my

time by setting up conference calls with me and then you never call. You

said, during my evaluation (2/6/09) that we were going to have weekly

calls but you have never called. In fact, you do not return my phone calls

or e-mails. You told me that you wanted to come to Dallas for the FAT

but when I sent you and Kevin an e-mail asking you both to confirm

your attendance, you did not reply, consequently, Kevin replied and he

came, you did not. Just like you have expectation [sic] of me, I have

expectations of you as my manager.

I gave you a list of controlsitems that I felt we need to focus on and also

automation supportstrategic diagramsthat you have notresponded back

to me on. You, also, were suppose to attend our first automation support

conference call with IT and you did not but you always send an excuse

e-mail to explain. However, I cannot continue to excuse this kind of

behavior anymore because it is very disrespectful and on top of this you

presented me with a negative evaluation. I, sincerely, took it upon

myself to volunteer to help out during this difficult period, although it

has now turned into me taking on the responsibilities of three other

engineers with no admin or drafting support. I have given up my

personal time to be on call 24/7 by the plants; I work weekends doing

backups and projectstart ups and I feel that none of my efforts are being

appreciated. I have accomplished a significant amount of work for BM,

however, it is disturbing that although I am reaching far beyond my job

duties to keep us afloat, I can not be rated a (4). Something is very

wrong with this picture, I am requesting that someone explain to me

what it takes to be rated a (4) because, clearly, it not [sic] obtained by

performing over and above the capacity of your own job functions or by

saving engineering thousands of dollars bypreventing PLC over writing,

which is monumental in itself but your only focus is plant support.

11

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 11 of 108
As I explained to you, it is appalling that my review consisted, mainly,

about two one-sided conversations: 1) one plant’s feedback (when I

service them all) during a 1:00 am, call where I offered my support but

the operator could not do the things that I was telling him to do and he

constantly put me on hold, I continued to follow up on the situation and

2) [m]y contact with IT over providing me a loaner laptop (my laptop

was being serviced) where I expressed my frustrated (sic) in that IT send

[sic] me a loaner without a CD Rom drive, therefore, I could not load

any of my applications that I use to provide plant support. I feel that

when you found out about this, you should have addressed this issue

with IT to ensure that I have what I need to adequately support the

plants while my laptop is being serviced, this issue still requires

addressing. I expect you to address your concerns with me, not just

present them to me in my evaluation. I was evaluated based on Peter’s

job description, not mine, none of my project work was even mentioned,

although, I have sent you progress reports, updating you about them. I

am assuming that since you have a very limited knowledge of controls

and my job functions, it makes you look better by showing me in a

negative light. Although you agreed to modify my 2008 year end review

on 2/6/09, it has not transpired, you sent an e-mail three weeks ago on

a Friday informing me that it would be updated, the following Monday,

but nothing has been done to date, this is unacceptable. 

Joe: I have tried not to say anything and I do not mean any harm but it

is not in the best interest of my professional career, our department or

Benjamin Moore, as a whole, not to address and resolve this. I require

a manager who has knowledge of electrical/controls and a vision and

strategy for its future, someone who can evaluate me based on my

specific job description and is objective and fair. I deserve a manager

who is interested in my career development and not one who looks for

ways to tear it down and I, certainly, expect my phone calls and e-mail

to be returned. I should not have to continue to contend with this kind

of unprofessionalism. I am not sure if it is just me or if she treats her

other direct reports in this manner, but this working relationship is not

working out. I know that the two of you work very closely together and

it may be difficult for you to be objective in this matter but, clearly,

something needs to be done to resolve it. Therefore, I am requesting that

12

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 12 of 108
my 2008 evaluation be modified to reflect the tasks as described in my

specific job description and that I be managed by you. Jessie’s actions

do not serve to cultivate a successful working relationship between the

two of us. Perhaps you or Sue will get back to me concerning how we

will proceed on this matter.

Regards,

Tracy Jones-Sanders

. . .

From: Dotzman, Joseph

Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:22 AM

To: Sanders, Tracy

Cc: Eiler, Susan; Singh, Jessie

Subject: RE: Monthly Catch-up - Personnel Issue - CONFIDENTIAL

Tracy,

There is obviously a major rift here that requires attention. Because I am

going on vacation next week, I would like to have a phone conversation

tomorrow with yourself and Sue on the line to discuss this matter. We

can establish next steps during that call. 

Although there is obviously frustration on your part, I would ask that

you refrain from sending messages such as those below, and instead

work with your HR business partner, Sue Eiler, or call your manager

directly. If things are as broken as you say, then you must discuss it with

your manager before sending out an email such as you have below.

Concerns, accusations, and conjecture, particularly those made with a

confrontational approach that cast your manager in a negative light only

serve to hurt your credibility. I am not taking sides nor am I making any

judgments about who is right and who is wrong at this point, I am just

stating that this type of impasse is not well served by emailing a broad

audience.

13

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 13 of 108
I will send out a meeting invite shortly.

Regards,

Joe

. . .

From: Sanders, Tracy

Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 12:59 PM

To: Dotzman, Joseph

Cc: Eiler, Susan

Subject: RE: Monthly catch-up· Personnel Issue ·CONFIDENTIAL

Importance: High

Joe,

I understand your point about calling her directly but why bother when

you know that she does not answer or return your calls. I am sorry that

you feel that this is a confrontational approach but it is not it is simply

the truth and there is no other way to sugar coat it I felt that I was

addressing thisissue with the same personsthatshe cast a negative light

on me with and that’s you and Sue. I felt that the two of you should be

copied on escalated issues but I apologize if you disagree, however, if

you prefer in the future, I will only contact Sue. Again, I mean no harm

but something has to be done. I look forward to talking with you and

Sue, tomorrow.

Thanks,

Tracy Jones-Sanders

. . .

From: Dotzman, Joseph

Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 12:31 PM

To: Sanders, Tracy

14

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 14 of 108
Cc: Eller, Susan

Subject: RE: Monthly Catch-up· Personnel Issue - CONFIDENTIAL

I understand. We’ll talk tomorrow.

Thanks,

Joe

Doc. no. 66-12 (Exhibits to Pallozzi Deposition), at ECF 38-41.

30

 Later that

month, Theresa Pallozzi, a Caucasian Human Resources Business Partner, was

assigned to handle the HR functions of the Controls Group, which, at the time, still

only contained plaintiff.31

In May 2009, plaintiff began reporting to Dennis Recca, Benjamin Moore’s

Lead Engineer.32 Recca, who was based in Flanders, New Jersey, managed the entire

Engineering Department and was responsible for operations at all six of Benjamin

Moore’s manufacturing facilities.

33 Recca did not get involved in the day-to-day

operationsthat plaintiff performed, but he did attend weekly telephonic meetings with

30 These emails were originally part of a chain. They have been rearranged in chronological

order.

31 Doc. no. 66-12 (Pallozi Deposition), at 20-21; doc. no. 66-10 (Edwards Deposition), at 6-7;

doc. no. 66-7 (Recca Deposition), at 13. It appears that Susan Eiler, whom plaintiff included in the

previous email correspondence, was assigned to handle the HR functions of the Controls Group prior

to Pallozzi.

32

 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 82-83.

33 Doc. no. 66-20 (Recca Declaration), at 1-2, ¶¶ 2, 5; doc. no. 66-7 (Recca Deposition), at

10.

15

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 15 of 108
plaintiff, and did periodic monthly updatesfor project progress.34 Recca also required

all engineers he supervised to keep an updated calendar regarding the projects

assigned, except when the employee wasin attendance at their regular work location,

and he regularly reviewed employee calendars.

35 Recca often reviewed plaintiff’s

calendar entries and found that plaintiff did not include her daily projects on her

calendar for the times she worked from home.36 As a result, Recca emailed plaintiff

multiple times and requested that she update her calendar to include the projects she

was working on from home.37 For example, Recca sent plaintiff the following email

on June 15, 2009:

Tracy,

The point of calendar entries is to reflect as close as possible your WFH

work schedule. You have just duplicated the same itinerary on every

planned WFH day including over your vacation. Your calendar does

reflect the full 8 hour schedule as we have discussed but it should vary

each week depending on your priorities. At the end of your WFH day

you may need to take a few minutes to rebalance time on your calendar

based on actual an [sic] add some details.

For example, on June 10 what files were actually backed up 12:30 to

3:30 Backed up Jtown, C&C, Pell City Cell 1 etc 3:30 to 4pm Trouble

shoot Milford tank level.

34

 Doc. no. 66-7 (Recca Deposition), at 28-30.

35 Doc. no. 66-7 (Recca Deposition), at 33, 45; doc. no. 66-4 (Exhibits to Plaintiff

Deposition), at ECF 10.

36

 Doc. no. 66-20 (Recca Declaration), ¶ 24.

37

Id.

16

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 16 of 108
During my next visit I’d like to review the back-up process so we can

explore ways to streamline process.

If you have any questions call to discuss.

J. Dennis Recca, P.E.

Doc. no. 66-4 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 20.

Plaintiff sent the following email to Edwards and Pallozzi on June 29, 2009:

Liz,

I hope that you are doing well. However, on 6/26/09, Dennis Recca

informed me of management’s decision to deny me the continuance of

my FWA on the bases that Joe Dotzman said, “no one in Supply Chain

will be allowed to work from home.” With this in mind and the fact that

the primary location where I provide after hour support is from my

home, this decision only serves to put our level of production in

jeopardy. With most facilities operating on three shifts, they require

24/7 support, therefore, I am appalled that management would even

consider taking away the tools and the flexibility necessary to provide

this coverage. Week before last, I was told that they will no longer

continue to pay for the internet service that I use to provide after hour

support but after I explained the fact that we have been tasked to reduce

cost and that our only other option is to rely on outside contractors with

overtime rates in excess of $250.00/hour (plus a monthly service

contract charge per facility and travel expenses), they told me (on

Friday) that they will pay for my internet through the end of the year but

as of July 1, 2009, no one in Supply Chain will be allowed to work from

home.

After almost two years of telecommuting, volunteering to take on extra

work responsibilities and actually getting things done, management

response has been to seek out and present negative information through

the misuse of the performance managementsystem and, now, take away

17

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 17 of 108
the tools that I need to perform my job (internet and FWA). Therefore,

given the above and the negative comments that Joe made in the rewrite

of my 2008 review, I feel that it is more important to him to retaliate

against me for the HR issue that I raised (concerning Jessie) than to

provide the necessary services to sustain BM’s production operations.

What will they seek to do next, take away my office or even get rid of

me? Is this what I can continue to expect while working for BM? Will

BM allow the performance system to be misused and allow retribution

for issues raised? This is not right! I, certainly, hope that we can turn

things around, navigate away from the negatives and the drive to seek

out hurtful actions against me? I hope we can put this behind us and

place the importance of BM’s production goals into focus.

Although I volunteered for this supposedly, temporary, assignment, it

bas been a sacrifice for me to cover (5) plants, allowing support issues

to interfere with my personal time, but I realize the high dependence of

production to controls, if our automation equipment is down, so is our

ability to produce paint, so I respond at 2:00 am or anytime. However,

now that they have said “no one can work from home,” it is unfair to say

that I can work from home after I leave the office but can not work from

home during regular business hours asI have been since coming to work

for BM. To me this policy mean, [sic] no one can work from home,

during regular business hours and non-business hours. Also, it is

unrealistic for me to work regular hours then work at 3:00 am or set up

to assist with a 6:00 am service call and then be required to report back

into the office at 7:00 am. How can I provide the level of “on demand”

24/7 service, get some rest and meet my family obligations?

The IT department allowsflexibility for those who provide 24/7 support

due to the nature of their job. How can Joe make a blanket statement

that “no one in Supply Chain can work from home,” without addressing

the nature of responsibilities per an individual’s job requirement? I

work with Gideon Johns of IT and many times we work into the “wee”

hours of the night on problems, however, he can balance out his hours

by working from home going into the office late but now, all of a

sudden, I can’t.

18

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 18 of 108
I also noticed that the FWA documentation does not say that there must

be a special circumstance to telecommute or that Supply chain is not

eligible. Per the, recent, memo that discussed the closing of the

Edgewater facility, it stated that some will work virtually without

reference to this supply Chain policy that was only discussed with me.

This new policy was not discussed with all of Supply Chain as a group,

it was only told to me, by Dennis, as the bases for denying my FWA.

In my opinion, this level of support service should be formally

incorporated into my duties (with appropriate compensation) and all of

the necessary tools be provided or management should move forward

with establishing service contract agreements with appropriate

contractors and provide the plant(s) instruction and contact information.

At this time, I do not understand what they want or expect of me, but I

do know that management must, immediately and realistically, address

how the plants will receive the support that three shift operations

demand.

I am currently on vacation and will return on 7/6/09, but perhaps you

can begin to address the issue of negativity, now, directed towards me,

the unwarranted denial of my FWA, and as well as, help me to

understand what is, realistically, expected of me. . . .

Kind regards,

Tracy Jones-Sanders, EE

Doc. no. 66-11 (Exhibits to Edwards Deposition), at ECF 14-16.

On July 22, 2009, plaintiff complained internally with Benjamin Moore’s

Human Resources Department that she was being harassed by her manager, Recca.38

Plaintiff contended that Recca harassed her by isolating her and leaving her out of

important, imperative communications and project meetings, and putting her under

38

 Doc. no. 66-11 (Exhibits to Edwards Deposition), at ECF 11.

19

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 19 of 108
heightened scrutiny.

39 Specifically, Recca did not communicate with plaintiff, and

instead talked to the plant maintenance manager at the Pell City facility about project

statuses as though he were the Controls Engineer, although he did talk to the

Caucasian engineers that were in New Jersey.

40

In response to the question, “What

made you believe that[the harassment]was because of your race,” plaintiff answered:

What caused me to believe it was because of my race was when — when

— it got to be back to back. It got to be harassing. It got to be one thing

after the other. He’s complaining about this. Instead of helping me get

the help that I need to do my job, he’s taking up my time on the phone

for hours and hours with me explaining the same thing to him over and

over again. Or he has me in weekly meetings where no one else — none

of the white engineers that I know of are in weekly meetings with their

manager, you know, because of the way that he handled communications

with me.

Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 117-18. Plaintiff noted that she was never

subjected to any racial epithets or racially derogatory statements.

41

Plaintiff also frequently complained about her workload, asking Recca if other

employees could assist her.42 To accommodate those complaints, Human Resources

adjusted plaintiff’s on-call schedule.43 Beginning August 3, 2009, plaintiff was only

39

 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 114-115.

40

Id. at 129-30.

41

Id. at 114.

42

 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 102-04.

43 Doc. no. 66-10 (Edwards Deposition), at 35; doc. no. 66-3 (Exhibits to Plaintiff

Deposition), at ECF 4.

20

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 20 of 108
required to provide on-call, after-hours support from Monday at 6 a.m. until Friday

at 5 p.m., and plaintiff was not required to provide support during prescheduled

vacation or personal days.

44 Additionally, plaintiff was granted a new FWA, which

allowed her to work from home on Wednesdays.

45

 Under the new FWA, however,

plaintiff was required to provide a detailed calendar listing of the projects and tasks

that she worked on daily, and she was advised that the arrangement would be

periodically reviewed to ensure its effectiveness.

46

Plaintiff applied for the position of Senior Controls Engineer at Benjamin

Moore on August 10, 2009.47 The position was based in Flanders, New Jersey, and

the Senior Controls Engineer would be responsible for troubleshooting, eliminating

control systems issues, managing controls projects, developing and maintaining

processsystemdatabases, developing new control and monitoring systems, and other

44

 Doc. no. 66-3 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 4.

45

Id.; doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 105. Recca had requested that employees

submit a form to continue any FWA. Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 109-110.

46 Doc. no. 66-3 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 4. Plaintiff disputes this fact based

on a letter Recca sent her stating: “When in attendance at your regular work location no entry

required.” Doc. no. 66-4 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 10. This letter, however, was

sent months before the new FWA was granted, and the new FWA explicitly required plaintiff “to

get a detailed calendar listing of the projects and tasks being worked on.” Doc. no. 66-3 (Exhibits

to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 10.

47 Doc. no. 66-20 (Recca Declaration), ¶ 27. Plaintiff helped prepare the job description for

this position in September of 2008, and provided it to Jessie Singh and Joseph Dotzman. Doc. no.

66-2 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 294. The position was posted on June 4, 2009. Doc. no. 66-20 (Recca

Declaration), ¶ 26.

21

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 21 of 108
controls functions.

48 The job posting listed the following required qualifications for

the position:

- BS degree in Electrical Engineering Technology, or equivalent

experience. 

- Minimum of ten years experience in process Senior Controls

Engineering processsupport and project management, preferably

from a liquid productsindustry (paint, food, beverage, household

product, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical).

- Will have the ability to collaboratively analyze and evaluate

controls and automation systems, and to work with operating and

corporate personnel to implement changesin systems, equipment,

and procedures that result in operational improvement.

- The Senior Controls Engineer must have an understanding of

PLC architecture and have experience writing functional

requirements and specifications. Must have the ability to create

and modify PLC ladder logic. Must be able to integrate

instrumentation, vision systems, bar code scanners, servo motors,

stepper motors, and multi-axis robots into control systems.

- The Senior Controls Engineer will have PLC and high level

language programming skills, i.e. Visual Basic, C/C++.

- The Senior Controls Engineer must have strong interpersonal,

communication, presentation, writing, project management,

negotiation, influence,teamwork, analytical and decision-making

skills, as well as a strong attention to detail.

- Strong computer literacy with significant experience in MS

Office, including Microsoft Project. Must be able to develop

P&ID’s and other support drawings utilizing AutoCAD /

AutoCAD Lite.

- Requires frequent travel.

- In depth knowledge of the requirements of NEC, IEC, NFPA and

other relevant codes as they apply to controls systems.

Doc. no. 66-7 (Exhibits to Recca Deposition), at ECF 37-38.

48

 Doc. no. 66-20 (Recca Declaration), ¶¶ 26, 27.

22

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 22 of 108
In August of 2009, plaintiff told Edwards that she would no longer

communicate with Recca directly, and would only communicate with him through

voicemail or email.

49 According to Recca, communications between himand plaintiff

became strained.

50 As a result, Pallozzi began attending weekly telephonic meetings

between plaintiff and Recca to help assess the communication issues.

51 On August

24, 2009, the following email correspondence occurred between plaintiff and

Pallozzi:

From: Pallozzi, Terry

Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 9:45 AM

To: Sanders, Tracy

Subject: Feedback

Hi Tracy,

Do you have a few moments for me this Wednesday so that I can

provide you some of the feedback from our meeting last week. Let me

know.

Thanks

Terry

. . .

From: Sanders, Tracy

Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 1:06 PM

To: Pallozzi, Terry

49

 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 116-17.

50

 Doc. no. 66-20 (Recca Declaration), ¶ 22.

51 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 136. Edwards telephonically attended one of the

meetings.

23

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 23 of 108
Subject: RE: Feedback

Terry,

Yes, I will make myself available and thank you for sitting in on the call.

However, you expressed your frustration and discontent with how our

conversation went. As you can see, phone conversations with Dennis

can last for hours going over the same material that has already been

discussed and explained to him before, even in writing. Now, couple

that conversation with him delivering messages of about what they are

going to take away from, (i.e. the internet, FWA, *56 hours of comp

time), pressuring me for dates, adding more tasks instead of offering to

relieve me, along with sarcastic comments about me and after hour

support and telling me that that [sic] Art is not here anymore, etc., then

multiply it by several conversations, during a short time span, and it is

enough to raise anyone's stress level. These kind of engagements only

serve to hinder me from doing my work, create a hostile working

environment and nothing really gets accomplished.

Thursday’s agenda was suppose to cover four points but we never made

it past the first one in a hour and a half. I asked another engineer how he

handles discussions with Dennis and he said “I bang my head against the

wall . . . ,” he said that he tries to avoid them as much as possible

because it is stressful and he told me not to allow it to stress me. Does

BM offer any training to individuals whom they place in management

positions? As a new employee, within the span of about a year and a

half, I lost a good manager and have been subjected, to-date, to three

other individuals and out of the three of them, I see no evidence of

managerialskill or expertise. Thisis not good for BM, I have gone from

one extreme to the other, one manager who did not communicate at all

to one who propels me into vicious cycles of conversation where I am

forced to repeat myself while no work gets done. At some point,

something has to give, meaning that HR or higher management has to

stop and take a hard look at things and make some decisions and

adjustments that work for the betterment our department which

continues to deteriorate.

24

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 24 of 108
Please do not take this e-mail as anything more that constructive, with

the aim of seeing that things get better because only if it’s brought to

your attention is there even a remote chance of something being done

about it. At the end of the call, I noted that you said that we were free to

talk outside of thisforum, therefore, I must reiterate that I am abiding by

doctor’s directive to minimize stress and handle conversations with him

through a third party. I have put in a call to my doctor so that he can

address his comments, directly, to my supervision. Also, in the event

that you are not available to attend the weekly call, please have Dennis

to reschedule.

Warmest regards,

Tracy Jones-Sanders

. . .

From: Pallozzi, Terry

Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 2:58 PM

To: Sanders, Tracy

Subject: RE: Feedback

Let’s plan to talk on Wednesday. I will send you a meeting request

Terry

Doc. no. 66-13 (Exhibits to Pallozzi Deposition), at ECF 7-8.

52 Three days later,

plaintiff sent the following email to Pallozzi:

From: Sanders, Tracy

Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 7:53 AM

To: Pallozzi, Terry

Subject: Follow Up

Importance: High

52 These emails were originally part of a chain. They have been rearranged in chronological

order.

25

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 25 of 108
Tracking: Recipient Read

Pallozzi, Terry Read: 8/27/2009 8:04 AM

Terry,

I tried to reach this [sic] morning as a follow up to our conversation.

What I am hearing isthat you are seeking cast [sic] me as insubordinate.

That was the most dominate [sic] word that you used on yesterday. It is

as if it is being used as a form of entrapment because if I do not say

anything, I am insubordinate and if I say something, I am frustrated,

harsh and insubordinate, and subsequently, you will put this in writing

and in my file. Therefore, if your participation on the calls is to threaten

and document me as insubordinate and disable (telling me that I need to

contact Atena [sic] about getting short term disability if I do not feel that

I can do my job), then this is not what I signed up for.

I was under the impression that we were working through some

difficulties where you knew that was frustration and defensiveness

(because of what my department was trying to take away from me/my

evaluation, etc) involved. However, if I can not work through this

without the threat of being written up as insubordinate, then we need to

approach this different way. It is not my intent to be insubordinate,

again, I sincerely sought to help out my department with a strong drive

to do as much as I could and with a willing attitude, but that is not what

is being documented, here. You are seeking to document anything that

you can term insubordinate which, to me, does little towards

accomplishing positive results; it only further deteriorates the situation.

Thank you for listening.

Regards,

Tracy Jones-Sanders

Doc. no. 66-13 (Exhibits to Pallozzi Deposition), at ECF 9 (emphasis in original).

Plaintiff informed Recca thatshe had applied for the Senior Controls Engineer

26

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 26 of 108
position on September 4, 2009.

53

On October 21, 2009, the following email correspondence occurred between

plaintiff and Recca (with Pallozzi attached as a recipient):

From: Recca, Dennis

To: Sanders, Tracy

Cc: Pallozzi, Terry

Sent: Wed Oct 21 13:51:24 2009

Subject: Travel Expenses

Tracy

As a follow-up to our discussion on your recent expense submittal I

would refer you to the BM HR - Travel Expense Guidelines which can

be found via the Employee Online Handbook. Please take note under

business meals that you must account for meals with others under

entertainment and document as outlined. The travel guideline also only

authorizes car rentals up to “mid-size’. [sic] Please confirm if the rental

charges on your expense request was for two or three days and what the

car category was. I recommend you take the time to read through the

entire guide at this time.

I’m sorry you felt troubled with my questioning your expense form

because no one else had before. BM has requested that we all be

mindful of managing our expenses and I expect that you would consider

my suggestions when making future travel arrangements and

expenditures. I will return your expense request so you can make the

necessary corrections.

Dennis

. . .

53

 Doc. no. 66-7 (Exhibits to Recca Deposition), at ECF 28.

27

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 27 of 108
From: Sanders, Tracy

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:03 PM

To: Recca, Dennis

Cc: Pallozzi, Terry

Subject: Re: Travel Expenses

Dennis,

I do not have a problem with you questioning me about my expense

report because I understand the points that you made and will make the

appropriate changes. However, the issue is that you routinely question

me about everything that I do, everything! It is to the point that when

someone e-mails me and copies you, I can’t respond to them for you emailing or calling me about it to explain. You question me all the time

about support issues, about Controls, about other things and now

questions about my expenses. It is questions, questions, questions. I

find myself explaining and explaining and explaining then explaining

things over again. I have never experienced this level of questioning

from any manager and I would like to understand why.

I understand that your knowledge is limited when it comes to Controls

but I do not expect to be barraged with questions all the time until it

affects my work output. The time that I spend e-mailing or explaining

over the phone, I could have accomplished more of my work. Today,

you even questioned if I used the kitchen in the suite that always [sic]

use in Dallas,I find that quite excessive, then you came acrosslike I was

on a witness stand.

Believe me, I do not mind people asking questions but this has become

so routine and excessive that you may not be aware of it, I certainly hope

that you are not doing it on purpose, but what ever the reason, I hope

that you will be mindful and curtail the questioning so that I can perform

my job.

Thank you,

Tracy Jones-Sanders

28

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 28 of 108
. . .

From: Recca, Dennis

To: Sanders, Tracy

Cc: Pallozzi, Terry

Sent: Wed Oct 21 17:38:23 2009

Subject: RE: Travel Expenses

Tracy

I believe your characterization of the few times I have asked for

clarifications on technical issues is overly dramatized. I provide you

with the same level of guidance and questions that I do for others that

report to me. It appears that every time we have a discussion about

administrative issuesthat conflict with the way you want things we have

this kind of response. I would like us to spend time reviewing this with

Terry tomorrow.

Dennis

. . .

From: Sanders, Tracy

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:42 PM

To: Recca, Dennis

Cc: Pallozzi, Terry

Subject: Re: Travel Expenses

There are questions all the time then more when we talk on Thursdays. 

Things do not have to be like I want them but you do not want to accept

my ideas or suggestions in Controls or Admin which is why I am

excluded from Controls related meetings, etc.

You only seem interested in asserting your authority and making sure

that I make no decisions or have any control so you ask contractors and

everybody else about projects to learn enough to base your decision. 

29

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 29 of 108
Like I ask you before, why have Controls staff if you are not going

respect their knowledge?

I have said all that I have to say on this subject because this a sensitive

area that provokes argument, however, if you want to discuss this with

Terry, you can. I will have no further comments on this subject during

our meeting.

Thanks.

Tracy Jones-Sanders

Doc. no. 66-11 (Exhibits to Edwards Deposition), at ECF 19-21.54 The next day,

plaintiff sent the following email to Edwards(with the prior correspondence between

Recca and plaintiff attached):

Liz,

I hope that you are doing well and I am sorry to bother you, but the

meetings with Dennis and Terry are amounting to Dennistrying to assert

his authority, and therefore, he parades me in front of Terry on issues so

that they can be in agreement and double up on me. Two on one is not

fair to me and I choose not to participate under unfair circumstances.

Please see the e-mails, below, addressing my concerns of how he,

excessively, questions me to the point that it affects my work output. I

have talked to others in the department about this and they say that this

is how Dennis is, but that he does not question them on the level that he

is questioning me and I want to know why? I have never had to explain

everything that I do or experienced this level of questioning from any

manager throughout my entire career.

We continue to not see eye-to-eye. He is frustrated in that he does not

54 These emails were originally part of a chain. They have been rearranged in chronological

order.

30

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 30 of 108
understand Controls, i.e., what it consist of, the process and nature of

Controls. I have explained my work in lay-terms (over & over again)

but he comes back around to the same comments, “I can’t get my head

around it..” [sic] and there I go, explaining it again. I was told that he

said, “she confuses the hell out of me” to one of my counterparts. Due

to his lack of understanding about what I say and do, I can see the same

thing happening again with my performance review. Typical to last

year, a lack of understanding generates negative reviews about minor

things, i.e., what the plant said or knit picky things (calendar, etc.) and

do not penetrate the core of my responsibilities.

It amazes me to see him portray himself in a better light during our

weekly calls but it’s a different story, offline:

He routinely questions me about everything that I do, everything!

It is to the point that when someone emails me and copies you, I can’t

respond to them for you e-mailing or calling me about it to explain. He

questions me all the time about support issues, about Controls, about

other things and now questions about my expenses. It is questions,

questions, questions. I find myself explaining and explaining and

explaining then explaining things over again. I understand that he has

limited knowledge when it comes to Controls but I do not expect to be

barraged with questions about everything that I do all the time to the

point that it affects my work output and creates a stressful environment.

The time that I spend emailing or explaining over the phone, I could

have accomplished more of my work. He even questioned if I used the

kitchen in the suite that [I] always use in Dallas, I find that quite

excessive, then he came across like I was on a witness stand.

Although the installation phase of the Dallas project is complete,

he does not understand that my work at the support level is just

beginning. I must familiarize myself with the new system in order to be

able to provide the same level of support (1st line defense) that I provide

on our other systems. It is as if he does not want to allow me the time to

become familiar with the system because he mentioned that it is his

decision to have me focus on the GE side since we have more GE than

AB but when I asked him, if I get a call about AB at 3:00 am, what

31

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 31 of 108
should I tell them, “I can't help you because I only work on GE,” he

could not respond to that. My role isto be able to provide a certain level

of support on all automation systems/equipment/programs, he should

understand that. He does not understand that I have to follow through

with the contractors on the new system to ensure that we have all the

program flies, software to open these flies, documentation, etc. We

hardly have documentation because they do not follow through.

Controlsis not like his construction projects where after the construction

phase is done, the project is finished and you move on to the next one.

My work begins after the installation/construction phase.

I continue to be left out of Controls related meetings, calls, emails, interview process, etc. On one project, I was left out to the point

that the outside contractor asked me why, the contractor then began to

copy me on the e-mails, I thanked him and he responded, “It’s the right

thing to do.” I hear things about the Controls portion of the project from

the maintenance personnel here in Pell City and others but not from

Dennis.

He continues to say that he can not get his head around what I do

and does not read and respond to me [sic] monthly status reports. 

Although, I explain things over & over again, he has watched me do

certain things by remotely viewing my computer, I sent him a week’s

calendar of what its like in Controls” [sic] but he still alludes to the fact

that he can not get a handle on it and I confuse the hell out of him.

I am hearing from more than one individual about negative

comments that he makes about me; Asking others about me; Asking

(contractors, etc.) about Controlsinstead of relying on our internalstaff.

Contractors do not know our system as a whole, our philosophy or the

direction that we are headed. On projects, everybody goes out and get

thema contractor with consulting the internal controls group and we end

up with things programmed so many different ways, no standards, no

documentation, drawings, etc. but then they look to me to support it

when something goes wrong at 3 am.

Inconsiderate — On one occasion, he changed our meeting to

32

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 32 of 108
2:30 pm, but just before that time, a out-of-town vendor had stopped by

to talk to me, when I explained, he [said] you need to tell them to leave

(the tone of it is what disturbed me)!! This put be in an uncomfortable

position and I felt bad about just telling them to leave so I asked them

to wait for me. I stayed late to talk with them.

On another occasion, he was in Pell City and when it came to be

9:00 am for our meeting, his door was closed so I sent him an e-mail and

asked that he be considerate of my schedule because I had planned my

day around the 9:00 time slot. Also, if I ask him to change the meeting

or to attend training or anything, the answer is always, NO! I ask him

questions in my monthly status report but he never responds.

Last month, when I reported off sick, he sent me an e-mail telling

me to call a plant or contact Gideon or get a contractor, I did not read the

e-mail until I returned to work because I was out sick. This is why he is

there to manage and get backup for when I am out. Most times if I do

not feel well, I will work from home but this was not the case and he

should have respected that.

He does things related to controls on his own without discussing

them with me and produces the wrong results. He secured funding for

a contractor to do some work and gave him a PO without talking to me,

first. Had he talked to me, first, he would have found out that the

situation was resolved and there was no need to issue the PO. On

another occasion, he wanted our secretary to help me work on

something, so he took it upon himself to send her a manual without any

explanation along with it and told her to work on it. If he had discussed

this with me, he would have found out that the manual was irrelevant to

the project at hand. I know that he meant well but by discussing things

with everyone else and not me is not the way to get desired results.

On many occasions, I receive notes of thanks from the plants, but

I never hear comments like, good job or thanks from management. I

change my vacation time to accommodate the workload but I never hear

a “thank you” for sticking around to take care of this. A good manager

knows the importance of expressing goodness to his/her employees.

33

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 33 of 108
I am still just one individual trying to do the things that are

already on my plate plus items that he keeps adding.

I do not know what it will take for him to understand me but I feel like

I am spinning my wheels and being questioned very excessively. I see

it asfurther harassment. It is difficult to follow the lead of someone who

does not understandControls, its workload and responsibilities and who,

intentionally, leave me out on matters related to my area. It is as if he

wants to call all the shots and micro-manage everything that I do

without knowledge and understanding of what I do.Controlsisthe focal

point of our paint making process but it continues to suffer under

managers who do not understand or simply think that they know because

they ask others. Therefore. I am looking to you as a resource for

guidance.

Thank you,

Tracy Jones-Sanders

Doc. no. 66-11 (Exhibits to Edwards Deposition), at ECF 17-19. The weekly

meetings between Pallozzi, Recca, and plaintiff ended after this email.55

By November of 2009, Benjamin Moore had received a total of 109 applicants

for the Senior Controls Engineer position.

56 Dotzman and Ken Marino, a Caucasian

andBenjamin Moore’s Vice President of Manufacturing, discussed what theywanted

from the Senior Controls Engineer, and decided they needed somebody who was a

55 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 166. Plaintiff believes the meetings ended because

she reported to Edwards that they were “two against one.” Id.

56

 Doc. no. 66-20 (Recca Declaration), ¶ 29.

34

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 34 of 108
mentor, had supervisory experience, and controls experience.57 Leadership and

supervisory experience was important because Dotzman and Marino discussed the

possibility of adding more controls engineers.

58

 

Pallozzi screened the initial applicants.

59 Five candidates were selected for

interview based upon review of the candidate applications,including Frederick Yama,

a Caucasian.

60 Pallozzi also forwarded plaintiff’s resume for review for the Senior

Controls Engineer position,

61

and Dotzman talked with plaintiff about the position

and entertained her thoughts on how she could fulfill the role.62 Dotzman was

familiar with plaintiff’s skill set, and felt there was no need to interview her for the

Senior Controls Engineer position.

63

Pallozzi conducted the initial interview with Yama.64 Thereafter, Yama

interviewed with Recca, Dotzman, Jonathan Shema, Gideon John, and Chris

Reynaud.

65 Dotzman and Recca then recommended Yama proceed to interview with

57

 Doc. no. 66-9 (Dotzman Deposition), at 10.

58

Id.

59

 Doc. no. 66-12 (Pallozzi Deposition), at 37-38.

60

 Doc. no. 66-20 (Recca Declaration), ¶ 30.

61

 Doc. no. 66-13 (Exhibits to Pallozzi Deposition), at ECF 5.

62

 Doc. no. 66-9 (Dotzman Deposition), at 16.

63

Id.

64

 Doc. no. 66-12 (Pallozzi Deposition), at 39.

65 Doc. no. 66-8 (Marino Deposition), at 8; doc. no. 66-9 (Dotzman Deposition), at 9, 19; doc.

no. 66-7 (Recca Deposition), at 15-17; doc. no. 66-16 (Yama Deposition), at 11-14.

35

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 35 of 108
Ken Marino.

66 Marino conducted the final interview with Yama.67 Marino didn’t

interview plaintiff, however, because he did not believe she was qualified for the

position.

68

Ultimately, Marino decided to hire Yama for the Senior Controls Engineer

position.

69 Marino contends that he selected Yama over plaintiff because, in addition

to plaintiff’slack of leadership, Yama had experience in chemical engineering as well

as controls, while plaintiff’s experience was limited to electrical controls, and Yama

had thirty-four years of management experience, while plaintiff only had twenty-four

years of management experience, and had not been a manager in nearly five years.

70

Yama was offered the Senior Controls Engineer position on November 2, 2009.

71

 

On November 12, 2009, plaintiff called Benjamin Moore’s employee hotline

— The Berkshire Hathaway Workplace Alert Program powered by Global

Compliance — and reported that she was being discriminated and retaliated against,

66

 Doc. no. 66-8 (Marino Deposition), at 7-9.

67

Id. at 8-9.

68

Id. at 21.

69

Id. at 7.

70 Doc. no. 66-8 (Marino Deposition), at 25-26. Plaintiff disputes these facts, but only cites

to an email between her and Edwards regarding alleged harassment, and Recca’s reasons for firing

Yama. See doc. no. 66-11 (Exhibits to Edwards Deposition), at ECF 11; doc. no. 66-7 (Recca

Deposition), at 26-27, 40. Plaintiff’s complaints of harassment, alone, are not sufficient to dispute

her lack of qualifications, and Recca’s reasons for terminating Yama are not sufficient to dispute

his qualifications prior to being selected for the Senior Controls Engineer position.

71

 Doc. no. 66-20 (Recca Declaration), ¶ 31.

36

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 36 of 108
and subjected to a hostile working environment, because Recca was not including her

in communications on a project and thatshe was denied a promotion.

72 On November

23, 2009, plaintiff completed a follow-up call and requested thatsomeone contact her

as soon as possible because she was working in a “hostile work environment.”73

On November 25, 2009, Recca announced that Yama would be the new Senior

Controls Engineer.74 Rick Yama assumed the position on November 30, 2009.

75

Thereafter, Yama was plaintiff’s direct manager, and he reported to Recca, plaintiff’s

former direct manager.76 Yama was told there were communication issues with

plaintiff before he joined Benjamin Moore.77

On December 1, 2009, plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the

EEOC based upon her race and sex, alleging that she had been denied assistance to

perform her duties and that she was denied a promotion to Senior Controls

Engineer.78 The notice of the charge of discrimination was dated December 2, 2009,

and was addressed to Edwards.

79 On December 14, 2009, Global Compliance

72 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 162-64; doc. no. 66-11 (Exhibits to Edwards

Deposition), at ECF 2.

73

 Doc. no. 66-11 (Exhibits to Edwards Deposition), at ECF 3-4.

74

 Doc. no. 66-7 (Exhibits to Recca Deposition), at ECF 39.

75

 Doc. no. 66-20 (Recca Declaration), ¶ 32.

76

Id.

77

 Doc. no. 66-16 (Yama Deposition), at 43.

78

 Doc. no. 66-3 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 23.

79

 Doc. no. 66-10 (Exhibits to Edwards Deposition), at ECF 38.

37

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 37 of 108
concluded its investigation of plaintiff’s internal, hotline complaint, noting:

We have investigated the complaint made by Tracy Sanders and have

found the following:

With respect to her claim that she was discriminated against by being

denied a promotion to the position of Senior Controls Engineer because

she is an African-American female, our investigation found this

allegation to be unsubstantiated. Mr. Yama, the selected candidate, has

34 years of considerable experience in the field, as well as extensive

management experience. Additionally, the job profile required electrical

engineering or equivalent experience and Mr. Yama clearly has the

requisite experience.

Regarding her claim of a hostile work environment, Terry Pallozzi, the

human Resources Business Partner, participated in weekly phone

conversations with Tracy Sanders and Dennis Recca, Tracy’s manager,

and found no evidence of harassment. Also, based upon my interviews

with Mr. Recca and Ms. Pallozzi, there were no findings of any evidence

of mistreatment of Ms. Sanders by Mr. Recca.

Subsequent to this complaint, Benjamin Moore & Co. Received a Notice

of Charge of Discrimination filed by Ms. Sanders with the EEOC and

Benjamin Moore will respond accordingly.

Doc. no. 66-11 (Exhibits to Edwards Deposition), at ECF 4. On December 18, 2009,

plaintiff wrote a letter to Warren Buffett, the Chairman, President, and CEO of

Berkshire Hathaway, the parent company of Benjamin Moore, complaining generally

of discrimination.

80 Subsequently, Benjamin Moore investigated plaintiff’s

complaints from her EEOC Charge of Discrimination, but found no evidence of

80

 Doc. no. 66-11 (Exhibits to Edwards Deposition), at ECF 6.

38

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 38 of 108
discrimination or harassment.

81

On December 24, 2009,Recca emailed Pallozzi, Edwards, and Marc Zoldessy,

Benjamin Moore’s General Counsel, an early draft of plaintiff’s 2009 Performance

Review Form, noting that: “This review and the events that led up to it have not been

a pleasant experience for me. My only consolation is that I feel confident that I

provided every opportunity I could to Tracy for it not to have turned out this way.”82

On January 4, 2010, plaintiff sent the following email to Pallozzi:

Terry,

I hope that you are well and that your enjoyed the holidays. I have

approached HR about the fact that my vacation, bereavement leave, sick

leave, etc., has been interrupted for over a year and a half due to my

supporting role (365/24/7) and I see no urgency that would have

prevented you from waiting until my return to send this e-mail. I respect

your time off and I would request that the respect be mutual.

The intentions for hiring Rick was never communicated to me by

management, I was left out of the process altogether. I have been

requesting assistance with the workload for over a year and a half, not

a new boss. It has always been my understanding that a senior level

individual is a “lead,” not a manager (manager is not in the title),

however, if the structure of the engineering department has changed

81 Doc. no. 66-10 (Edwards Deposition), at 24-25. Plaintiff disputes this fact because Global

Compliance, a third party company, received a report from the hotline. However, Edwards clearly

states that the report was sent to Benjamin Moore’s Human Resources Department, who would then

investigate. Additionally, Edwards only stated that Global Compliance received a complaint when

the hotline is used. It is clear that Benjamin Moore’s Human Resources Department received the

complaint when plaintiff complained directly to the Human Resources Department — as she did

numerous times.

82

 Doc. no. 66-7 (Exhibits to Recca Deposition), at ECF 50.

39

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 39 of 108
from department manger, lead, staff, etc., then I should have been

informed (org chart, etc.) before Rick was ever bought on board. It is my

right to understand both of our roles and responsibilities and to expect

to see the skill set in a new hire that will allow him to be able to,

immediately, shoulder the workload.

However, while consulting with EEOC officials, I was told that I have

a right to protest discrimination, and therefore, I am protesting the fact

that I have been assigned to six different individuals (with different

personalities and expectations) in just over two years, subjected to

mistreatment, unrealistic workload, the discriminatory manner in which

Rick was hired and the fact that I am expected to divulge information

that it has taken me two years to determine so that he can take it and

manage over me. As well, it isinappropriate that within BM, the number

of whites far out pace that of blacks, blacks have been working in the

plant for over twenty years and have not moved up, there are very few

blacksin management positions and none in the upper ranks. Minorities

have been affected by work force reductions, mistreated, fired, demoted

and, systematically, driven out. My position has been undermined and

I have been ostracized from projects meetings, e-mails and the

engineering group. Dennis and Joe had already created a hostile working

environment and with me being completely left out of the process only

add insult to injury which is not fair to me or Rick. I have tried not to

attribute the mistreatment that I have received while at BM to

discrimination but in retrospect, I attribute it all too entrenched racism,

and with all due respect, I am calling for something to be done about it.

Happy New Year!

Tracy Jones-Sanders, EE

Doc. no. 66-13 (Exhibits to Pallozzi Deposition), at ECF 13 (emphasis in

original).

On January 7, 2010, Edwards sent the following email to plaintiff:

40

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 40 of 108
Hi Tracy,

Per our conversation today, this is to confirm that Dennis Recca has

forwarded to me the concerns that you’ve highlighted in your year-end

‘09 Self Assessment. Regarding the Senior Controls Engineering

position, given that you have already filed a complaint with the EEOC

regarding this matter, we believe that it is best served to have this issue

addressed through the formal EEOC process. As indicated, our attorney

has already been in contact with the Commission.

Regarding your concerns about workplace harassment by your manager,

based on our involvement during meetings and investigations of your

prior complaints, again, we have not found any evidence that supports

a claim of harassment or hostile workplace. However, given the

relationship between you and your manager and the allegationsthat you

have made, Dennis has requested that I sit-in on the year-end

performance discussion with you that is scheduled for Friday, January

8th. Based on your feedback, thisis also welcomed. Therefore, I will be

on the call tomorrow.

Sincerely, Liz

Id. at ECF 14.

Thereafter, Plaintiff received her 2009 PerformanceEvaluation.

83 Plaintiff was

given a rating of “3-Meets All Expectations,” just as in her 2007 and 2008

evaluation.

84

 However, in addition to noting several of plaintiff’s successes, Recca

noted several weaknesses, including, for example, the following comments:

Tracy has shown an ability to work well with some individuals and on

different type projects but not with any consistency. Instead of

83

 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 172-73.

84

 Doc. no. 66-3 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 24-33.

41

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 41 of 108
responding to a call for help from a plant with the positives she can

provide she will sometimes focus her discussion on all the limitations

she perceives to have that prevent her from helping properly or at all. 

An example was when internet accessreimbursement wasfirst curtailed,

but then reinstated, Tracy still advised the plant that her ability to

support them was questionable because of this. Some plants have

complained on numerous occasions that Tracy is just not returning their

calls. This lack of cooperation, sense of not being a team player has

created a level of frustration from the plantsto the extent that many seek

assistance elsewhere.

Doc. no. 66-7 (Exhibits to Recca Deposition), at ECF 58-59. Plaintiff made the

following additional comments in her 2009 evaluation:

I assisted management in writing the technical sections of the job

posting (software used, functions, technical ability sought, etc.) for the

Senior Controls Engineer position. However, with all the above being

said, I applied for the position and was not given the opportunity to, at

least, interview (by phone or in person)!!! Blatant disrespect and

discriminatory!!!!!

For over two years, I have successfully performed every aspect of the

Senior Engineer position, working independently, supporting (5) plants,

completing 4 startups in 8 months without any support, yet I have been

overlooked for the position. I continue to be left out of e-mails,

meetings, etc. that are relative to Controls, to the point that a contractor

asked me why I was being left out, so he began to include me on emails, I thanked him for doing this and he replied, “It’s the right thing

to do.” In the two years that I have been here, I have been placed under

(5) managers. However, since the departure of Art Mengon, I have been

placed under managers who do not understand the work that I do so they

give me negative reviews about trivial things with untruths.

My current lead, gives me negative attitude (gets smart with me,

harassment, etc.), do (sic) not respect my technical abilities, targets my

work from home days (sic) with lengthy phone calls of excessively

42

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 42 of 108
questions/explanations, harassment, adds to an overbarring work load,

ignores my ideas/ recommendations and have overlooked me for the

senior position. I have sacrificed my time off to assist the plants but I

never hear “thank you” from management. He does not know enough

about my job to recognize successes in my area. This is not beneficial

to my performance, the engineering department or Benjamin Moore. I

continue to work in a hostile working environment due to retaliation and

discrimination.

. . .

When I, recently, spoke with the VP of Manufacturing about being left

out on Controls related issues, his only response was that BM is so fast

pace, he did not say that it was unacceptable or offer to correct the

situation. When we discussed how I was being treated and the fact that

I have been placed under several managers who do not know what I do

and explained that their lack of such knowledge is detrimental to the

company and staffers’ progress of Controls, he placed my job in

jeopardy by telling me, first there was a problem with Jessie, now

Dennis, if you do not get along with the new Senior Controls Engineer,

there will be no other options.

Doc. no. 66-7 (Exhibits to Recca Deposition), at ECF 53-59.

On January 13, 2010, plaintiff filed a second Charge of Discrimination.

85

In

addition to her previous allegations, plaintiff alleged: “Since filing this charge of

discrimination I was given negative commentary by my supervisor on my annual

evaluation even though the overall rating was a meet expectation. This type of

evaluation is used by the employer to terminate employees when there is a reduction

85

Id. at ECF 40. Plaintiff also checked the box for “retaliation” in her second Charge of

Discrimination.

43

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 43 of 108
in force or downturn.”

86

In March of 2010, the following email correspondence occurred between Yama

and plaintiff, with Edwards eventually copied onto the email chain:

From: Yama, Rick

Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 3:48 PM

To: sanders, Tracy

Subject: 5K Reactor

Tracy . . .

I see you have a meeting scheduled for the 5K reactor. The one thing I

need soon is the data plate info on the mass flow meters. These are the

primary and most expensive instruments that can probably be reused.

How is the Cell Touch button updates coming?

Rick

. . .

From: Sanders, Tracy

Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 3:53 PM

To: Varna, Rick

Subject: RE: SK Reactor

Fine.

Tracy Jones-Sanders, EE

. . .

From: Yama, Rick

86

Id.

44

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 44 of 108
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 9:26 AM

To: Sanders, Tracy

Subject: RE: SK Reactor

Tracy . . .

What doesfine mean? Can you give me your target completion datesfor

the first cell? As you are only adding text to buttons, I don’t think it

should take that long. Second, please walk out and record and send the

info for the 3-4 mass flow meters in the 5K reactor.

Rick

. . .

From: Sanders, Tracy

Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 10:33 AM

To: Yama, Rick

Cc: Edwards, Liz

Subject: RE: SK Reactor

Importance: High

Rick,

Please do not take this tone with me. I am working on more that just the

Pell City HMI changes and I ran into some thingsthat had to be clarified

and addressed on cell 1, otherwise, things are going fine. I plan to finish

cell 1 by the end of the week, you have the intranet link to monitor

progress. Also, I asked you for assistance with some of the other plant

requests that I have put on hold in order to work on Pell City, but you

did not respond.

I was out in Resin on yesterday [sic] getting information to prepare for

the meeting, today. According to Dan and Edward, mass flow meters

and the SCADA system (equipment and instrumentation) will not be

used in the Spiral Heat Exchanger project, so do you need this

information for another project? I thought we were working on the

45

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 45 of 108
Spiral Heat Exchanger; I have meetings, today and tomorrow on this

project, that I am preparing for.

However, this is not the first time that you have taken this tone with me

and I will not tolerate this treatment, therefore, I am requesting that you

please refrain from addressing me in this manner.

Regards,

Tracy Jones-Sanders, EE

. . .

From: Yama, Rick

Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 5:22 PM

To: Sanders, Tracy

Cc: Edwards, Liz

Subject: RE: SK Reactor

Tracy . . .

I would like to provide some clarity regarding my e-mail below to you.

As your manager, I have a responsibility to know the specific details on

your project and prioritize them accordingly. Your response to my

question was vague. In order for me to appropriately manage the work

load, it’s a reasonable expectation for me to ask you to provide the

specific project details, completion dates, roadblocks and

accomplishments. There was no intended malice or tones in my e-mail

to you so please do not interpret it as such. Again, the e-mail merely

requested more details to my original question: “How is the cell Touch

buttons update coming?”

In regard to the 5K reactor, it was Dan’s and my intent to use the project

as a basis to set up the process for further automation. If we have

instrumentation we can use or reuse I need to know about it so it might

be incorporated in the initial project.

46

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 46 of 108
Going forward, I will be asking for regularly updates regarding the

progress of your work.

Rick

. . .

From: Edwards, Liz

Sent: Tue 3/9/2010 10:41 PM

To: Sanders, Tracy

Subject: FW: SK Reactor

Hi Tracy,

I reviewed the below string of e-mails.Rick’srequest for a status update

is reasonable as your manager. It’s important to maintain

communications with him about any of the projects that you’re working

on.

Regards, Liz

. . .

From: Sanders, Tracy

Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 8:40 AM

To: Edwards, Liz

Subject: RE: SK Reactor

Liz,

Please be advised that it was not my intention for you to validate the email that I copied you on, it matters only how I felt and I want it

documented. The following statement could have been said a different

way “As you are only adding text to buttons, I don’t think it should take

that long.” This statement set a negative tone and this is not just my

opinion, but others as well. He asked me how it was going, I said fine,

if he had more specific questions, then he should ask them.

47

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 47 of 108
I understand that you work to protect management and I do not expect

you to come to my defense, I only want it documented that I found it

offensive, if not, disrespectful. It is his approach that isthe issue, not the

fact of him asking questions about my work. It is a way to handle

everything and his approach is not the way to cultivate team work, given

the hostile work environment and the fact that he is new.

Thank you,

Tracy Jones-Sanders, EE

Doc. no. 66-3 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 9-11.

87

On April 29, 2010, plaintiff sent the following email to Pallozzi and Edwards:

Terry,

Per our conversation regarding Rick’s comments, as I explained, I had

previously e-mailed Liz about it, therefore, I will refer you to her.

However, on Friday (4/9), there were additional derogatory remarks

about the work, as the e-mail in question, stated. Rick has also made

other unappealing statements to me, one example, during his last visit

to Pell City (2/09), he said that he had been in this situation before

where he got the job (Sr. Control Engineer) and I didn’t. It took all that

I had to keep my mouth shut! I couldn’t believe he said that!! I didn’t

say anything but I didn’t appreciate it, at all, and several of my

counterparts and family members could not believe that he said it to my

face like that. He also said that he has an advantage over me in that he

is located in Flanders.

I do not know what Dennis hastold him about me and past issues but his

attitude reflects a negative tone that does not cultivate a “team work”

working environment. Given the fact that he is new and does not have

any prior experience with our hardware/software, has not completed a

87 These emails were originally part of a chain. They have been rearranged in chronological

order.

48

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 48 of 108
tasked/project the entire five months on the job and does not exhibit the

instinct and leadership that it takes to do the job, people are taking

notice. I continue to ask for assistance on plant request issues and raise

controls questions/issuesin mymonthly projectsummary butreceive no

response. BM deserves a better controls group than this!

I still say that since Rick is not pleased with my work on the Pell City

Manifolds, he should finish it, maybe then we can get some work out of

him. Every time he is asked to do work, he calls Chris Raynald, the

contractor who also did not get the job, asking how to do things. Chris

contacted Dennis about it, asking thatRick not call him, he wantsto stay

out of it. Now, Rick calls Edward Haller. There was a blow up, the

other week, between Rick and someone in IT because Rick called

Edward and could not do the work, himself. I hear that the term

“discrimination” was used referring to how they (Dennis & Rick) call

Edward, as if he is the Controls Engineer, instead of calling me.

Also, is the fact that we do not, equally, share the on-call workload

going to be re-addressed (I understand that he is being paid extra for

this, yet I still receive nothing)? Liz said that it is up to the manager to

assign the hours so Dennis sent something saying that Rick would be

“backup” which continuesto leave me doing all of the PLC/HMI on-call

work (7/24/7) because the plants have my phone number, not his. Why

is he being paid more and is not doing the work, will I receive extra pay

since Rick does? Let’s be fair about the work load and salary.

Regards,

Tracy Jones-Sanders, EE

Doc. no. 66-13 (Exhibits to Pallozzi Deposition), at ECF 21. On May 3, 2010,

Sanders again reported to Edwards that she was being left out of projects for which

she would be providing system support.

88

88

See doc. no. 66-13 (Exhibits to Pallozzi Deposition), at ECF 22.

49

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 49 of 108
At some point during plaintiff’s employment, Benjamin Moore revised

plaintiff’s job description to include on-call activity.

89 Thereafter, in April of 2010,

plaintiff requested and was granted FMLA leave.90 She began her leave on May 11,

2010.

91 On May 19, 2010, Benjamin Moore received notice that plaintiff filed an

OSHA complaint against the company.

92 On June 7, 2010, Benjamin Moore learned

that plaintiff had filed a second OSHA complaint alleging that the company retaliated

against her by terminating her pay while she was on sick leave.93 On August 2, 2010,

PamSori, plaintiff’s medical provider, wrote a letter stating that plaintiff could return

to work on August 3, 2010, with the following limitations:

1) that she be permitted to work on her usual duties independently; and

2) that she not have sole responsibility of plant support seven days a

week, twenty-four hours a day, in that such duties are divided equally

(three and one-half days) between Tracy Sanders and other designated

staff.

Doc. no. 66-4 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 31 (emphasis in original).

The next day, plaintiff faxed Sori’s letter to Benjamin Moore and returned to

work.

94 Thereafter, Recca sent the following email to Pallozzi, Edwards, Yama, and

89

 Doc. no. 66-10 (Edwards Deposition), at 87-88.

90

 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 66, 179-80.

91

 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 66.

92

 Doc. no. 66-21 (Edwards Declaration), ¶ 11.

93

Id. ¶ 13.

94 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 66; doc. no. 66-13 (Exhibits to Pallozzi

Deposition), at ECF 29.

50

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 50 of 108
Zoldessy:

Terry

We received this fax from Tracy today. Apparently she is back to work.

Please advise us on an appropriate response, if any to the fax. In light

of the requested limitations I would also like to have some guidance for

Rick and I on the best way to conduct communications and introduce

work to Tracy.

J. Dennis Recca, P.E.

Doc. no. 66-13 (Exhibits to Pallozzi Deposition), at ECF 31. Pallozzi forwarded

Recca’s email to Diane Delikat, a Benjamin Moore Nurse and Short-term Disability

specialist.

95

On August 4, 2010, Delikat faxed a letter to Sori stating: “Enclosed is a job

description for Tracy Jones-Sanders, can she perform this job as described?”

96 Sori

faxed a written response, stating: “Yes.”97 On August 5, 2010, Delikat sent the

following letter to Sori:

Dear Ms. Sori,

This letter will confirm that we have received your release of Ms. Tracy

Jones-Sanders return to work effective August 3, 2010. You

subsequently confirmed via voicemail that Ms. Sanders is able to fulfill

all the essential duties of her current role as Controls Engineer based

95

 Doc. no. 66-13 (Exhibits to Pallozzi Deposition), at ECF 29.

96

 Doc. no. 66-4 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 32.

97

Id.

51

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 51 of 108
upon the role profile that I provided for your review. You should be

advised that Ms. Jones-Sanders will continue to report to her current

manager. She will be expected to take direction and work on projects

as assigned to her.

In regards to Ms. Jones-Sanders responsibilities of providing 24/7 plant

support, we have made arrangements that Ms. Jones-Sanders will only

be required to support plants during the course of her normal work day.

If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact us by the

close of businesstoday as Ms. Jones-Sanders manager will be reviewing

with her the current responsibilities of her position in accordance with

the release you have provided us. In the absence of hearing from you,

we will move forward with assigning Ms.Jones-Sanders current projects

that require her attention.

Doc. no. 66-11 (Exhibits to Edwards Deposition), at ECF 22. Plaintiff’s work

schedule was then modified to 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., with no on-call

responsibilities.

98 Following plaintiff’s return to work, Benjamin Moore terminated

her FWA.99 According to Edwards, plaintiff’s FWA was terminated because Recca

was not happy with the way she had been keeping her calendar.100 Yama sent the

following email to plaintiff regarding those decisions:

Tracy . . .

Again — welcome back.

The following is a recap of our conversation:

98

 Doc. no. 66-10 (Edwards Deposition), at 109-10.

99

 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 184-85.

100

Id. at 192-93.

52

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 52 of 108
- Your working hours will be 7:30AM to 3:30PM Monday through

Friday.

- All Scheduled work will be on site at the Pell City facility. (HR

— please note that Tracy said she had an agreement with HR

about working from home). Per consultation with Dennis Recca

I have rescinded the WFH on Wednesday.

- You will follow the callout/vacation protocolssetforth byDennis

Recca earlier this year.

- You will handle any and all 2700 Automation emergency issues

from Tuesday (0:00AM) thru Friday evening (until 12:00PM)

unless you are on schedule time off. I will handle Saturday

through Monday. If I am on vacation during a weekend I will

expect you to fill in for me. Of course I am always willing to help

out if the need arises.

- We will work out your project schedule in the next week. You

will provide an update every other Friday by workday end.

- We willset aside time two days a week to talk directly about your

projects.

- Your initial assignment is to document the entire Tank level

systemstarting with schematics. I will give you scope and further

detail on Monday the 9th.

Let’s work together to further your success at Benjamin-Moore this day

forward.

Regards,

Rick

53

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 53 of 108
Doc. no. 72-1 (Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s Response), at ECF 2.

101 Plaintiff then sent the

following email to Edwards on August 5, 2010:

Liz,

I hope that you are well. However, Rick Yama told me that he spoke

with you all about discontinuing my work from home benefits (here we

go again). However, since I am not being paid extra for after hour

support like Rick nor Will I have the benefit of adjusting my schedule

to accommodate this responsibility, how am I to provide 3:00 am

coverage? I would like to know how we can be fair about the around the

clock coverage where I receive no pay and I am expected to answer a

calls, for instance, at 3:00 am and report to work at 7:00 am? I see this

as a means to continue to retaliate against me by taking away a benefit

that was afforded to me upon coming to work for BM. I was given

approval by you to work from home and I am still operating under that

agreement. I still have the same responsibilitiesthat I had when we went

through this before, why do they continue to try to take things away

from me? Why am I being targeted? No one else is going through all of

this, is it because of my FMLA leave or complaint filings with HR,

OSHA and the EEOC? Therefore, I am requesting that you please

look into this as retaliation, per the employee handbook, BM states

that retaliation will not be tolerated. Also, it is against federal law

to retaliate (deny benefits, deny promotion, intimidate, etc.) against

any individual who has exercised their civil rights. I am also

requesting to be moved from under current management and that

something is done about the retaliation.

Please see the attached agreement that you sent to me and that I continue

to work under and the work from home form that I submitted when they

tried to take this benefit from me before, my work requirements still

101 Yama’s statement that plaintiff would be handling some on-call responsibilities conflicts

with Edwards’s deposition testimony that plaintiff’s work schedule was modified to include no oncall responsibilities. Future emails suggest that plaintiff had no on-call responsibilities following

her FMLA leave, but that Benjamin Moore expected her to assume those responsibilities eventually. 

See doc. no. 66-4 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 24-26.

54

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 54 of 108
remain the same. However, if you can not resolve thisissue. I would like

to, personally, meet with Ken or Dennis Abrams relative to this matter.

Also, upon my return to work, on Tuesday, I noticed that a GE PLC and

Woodhead Gateway device is missing from my office, also my project

manuals were ruffled through, I have asked several individuals about the

missing equipment and was told by Edward and Gideon that Rick was

in my office two weeks ago and that he may have taken it. I am a

peaceful/God fearing person who do not wish to cause confrontation but

I feel that, it is disrespectful that he took it without so much as sending

me an e-mail or leaving a note about it, thisis equivalent to theft. Please

have Rick to return it and ensure that a lock is installed on my door. I am

hopeful that your response will not be the usual: he is your manager and

he has the right to take things . . . , because he does not!! I would not go

to Flanders and just take things from his office or go through his things. 

I, subsequently, saw an email from Rick to Edward indicating that he

has the equipment and that had sent it back but Edward has not seen it

and it is still missing from my office.

It is unfortunate that I have to continue to report

mistreatment/retaliation/discrimination and it is even more unfortunate

that management allows it to persist and then expect me to work with

these mean-spirited individuals as if continuous mistreatment is not

happening. However, I find it ironic that the employee handbook says

that BM does not tolerate such things yet the same people remain in

their same positions without any reprisal, however, it appears that BM

would rather see me as a trouble maker and strive to make things hard

for me or even get rid of me instead of ensuring that its management live

up to its words in the employee handbook (equal opportunity for all, no

tolerance of retaliation, invest in employee development, safety first,

etc.). Again, I have done nothing to warrant this kind of treatment,

nothing!

The last time management made this decision, it forced me to have to

tell the plants that I am not allowed to work from home any more and

management became upset and the incident was, adversely, put in my

2009 performance review. We have so many other things to be

55

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 55 of 108
concerned about rather than me working from home. We should be

concentrating on safety (all plants), especially, since the recent

explosion, a little over a week and a half ago.

“All a man’s ways seem right to him, but the Lord weighs the heart”

(Proverbs 21:8 NIV)

Kind regards,

Tracy Jones-Sanders, EE

Doc. no. 66-14 (Exhibits to Pallozzi Deposition), at ECF 2-3 (emphasis in original).

On August 10, 2010, Edwards sent plaintiff the following email:

Hi Tracy,

As promised, I’ve looked into your concerns that you’ve called out in

your e-mail to me dated August 5, 2010. I also reviewed a copy of your

e-mail to your manager, Rick Yama.

As always, we take your complaints very seriously and thoroughly

investigate each one. Based on the findings from our investigations and

your letter to us, it has become quite evident that you either do not

understand or agree with the company’s standard policies or practices.

As a result, it appears that you continually interpret standard operating

proceduresthat apply to all employees and to you as well, as harassment

or retaliation. We understand you may not agree with all the standard

policies and practices, but you do need to abide by them. After each

investigation, your claims continue to be unfounded. Based on our

findingsfromthisinvestigation, we have seen no evidence of retaliation,

harassment or discrimination.

For example, it’s standard practice after an employee returns to work

from a Leave of Absence for the direct manager to re-orient the

employee by reviewing the expectations, work procedures, assignments,

etc. — many of which may change in light of the current business

factors at hand. Last week, thisis exactly what Rick Yama did with you.

56

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 56 of 108
Below summarizes our findings based on the points in your e-mail:

- Although your core working hours have been deemed as 7:30 AM

to 3:30 PM, Monday through Friday. Your job is classified as

“Exempt” which means additional work hours performed by you

are not eligible for overtime. This has been consistent since the

beginning of your employment and explained to you on several

occasions. We ask that you do not bring this up again unless you

have new information supporting otherwise.

- As a point of clarification, your “On Call” hours are now shared

about equally between you and your manager. You are “On Call”

from Tuesday 12:00AM (Midnight) thru Friday 11:59 AM which

is 64 hours not including your core hours at work. Rick is “On

Call” from Saturday 12:00 AM (Midnight) thru Monday 11:59

AM, which is about the same number of non-core hours. Over the

last 3 months, the “On-Call” emergencies have averaged about

once per month. Thisis consistent with the activity level that you

experienced too. If you should receive an emergency call which

requires an excess number of work hours during your non-core

schedule (e.g., 3 AM in the morning), you need to contact Rick

directly, discussthe emergency, what was performed, and request

the need to report to work at a different time on the following day.

- Per our Flexible Work Arrangement policy, granting an

alternative work arrangement is based on several factors

including the demonstrated behaviors by the employee (e.g.,

knowing and following company policies and practices as well as

the ability to effectively communicate with one’s manager.) It’s

been quite clear that you have not followed the direction around

reporting out to your manager on projects/workload, nor the basic

report-out procedures established by Dennis Recca. Therefore, it

is justified that you report to the company’s facility on a daily

basis, and you are expected to do so going forward.

- Furthermore, you mentioned in your e-mail to Rick thatsince you

are not allowed to work from home on Wednesday, you will not

57

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 57 of 108
be able to handle “On Call” emergencies although you have all

the necessary equipment to do so and being reimbursed for high

speed access. Being “On Call” is a requirement of this job.

Therefore, you are expected to do so since you have the ability

and necessary tools to performyour responsibilitiesfroma remote

location. Should you continue to refuse to perform your “On

Call” responsibilities, the company will have not [sic] alternative

but to deem this as insubordination.

- Regarding the removal of items in the office located in the Pell

City Plant, you should be aware, they are all company property

(e.g., Rack of GE, Woodhead, etc.) which was needed at another

location. If you need to utilize them, please request the use of

them from your manager. A lock will not be placed on the office

door. You have the ability to put any personal items in a secured

draw [sic] or cabinet.

I hope that I’ve addressed the issues at hand. If not, we can discuss if

you wish. I want to ensure that you fully understand your

responsibilities and authority. Your refusal to adhere to these

expectations could lead to corrective action up to and including

termination.

Also, prior to your Leave of Absence back in the April/May 2010

timeframe, you sent Terry and me a couple of e-mailsthat warranted our

review. Attached are our findings, Terry summarized them but did not

send this to you because she didn’t want to interfere with your FMLA

leave. After you have read our-responses, again please feel free to

contact Terry or me if you would like to discuss.

Lastly, please remove the closing footer to your e-mail immediately.

Religious proverbs can be interpreted as inappropriate in the workplace

and I have personally received complaints from other employees.

Thank you, Liz

Doc. no. 66-11 (Exhibits to Edwards Deposition), at ECF 30-31.

58

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 58 of 108
On August 11, 2010, Pallozzi sent the following email to plaintiff:

To: Tracy Jones-Sanders

From: Terry Pallozzi,

Re: E-mail Follow-up

In the April/May 2010 timeframe, you sent me a couple of e-mails. I’m

sending the responses to you now because we didn’t want to interfere

with your FMLA leave and waited for your return. It’s important to us

that we fully address your concerns, so after reading the below, please

feel free to contact me to if you would like to discuss. 

On May 6, you wrote an e-mail to us in response to the findings re: Pell

City Manifold Incident. We investigated the matters outlined and

summarized them below.

Regarding the role of HR:

As indicated to you in the past, it is the role of HR to be objective and

obtain the facts from both management and the employee. We have

always strived to do this when you have contacted us by promptly

investigating your concerns and gathering the facts in order to arrive at

an independent conclusion and make recommendations accordingly. As

you are well aware, I attended your weeklymeetings with Dennis Recca,

based upon your request to Liz, because you did not want to have ongoing 1:1 conversations with Dennis, who was your direct levelmanager

at that time. Thisrequest is quite a difficult demand to accommodate yet,

we were able to do so for over 2 months, at which time you then

requested that I no longer be present. It should be noted that Benjamin

Moore & Co has made a significant investment of time, patience and

understanding to help you address the matters that you brought to our

attention.

Allegations of Discrimination:

In Rick’s memo to you dated May 5, 2010, Rick pointed out a lack of

control procedures associated with your change management processto

add text to the buttons at Pell City. He also highlighted the need for you

to better demonstrate the ability to take feedback and objectively

59

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 59 of 108
manage conflict. Rick’s memo summarized his findings as to what

transpired and his performance expectations of you. Given the lack of

open communications between both of you, Rick summarized his

findings in writing to you. His letter is neither threatening nor

discriminatory.

Regarding Cimplicity System Coordination

- It was verified that Chris Raynaud was engaged to work on the

CCC Project involving the addition of new tanks, raw materials

and a pigging system during the same time you were working on

adding text to the buttons at Pell City.

- Chris also confirmed that you did in fact let him know when you

were done working on the system so he could then access it. This

was confirmed in the email you provided which reads as follows.

“Tracy, please let me know when you are done for the day so I

can spend some time and have cell 1 back for a few hours in the

evening, I work late these days. Cell l will be back to you at

midnight, every time we do so. Best regards, Chris”.

- Upon furtherinvestigationChris acknowledged your e-mail quote

that you provided to me: “Tracy, My next phase is to work on the

following ingredient/manifoldsRM2020, J7 PLIOTEC, Fl PROP

GLYCOL, D TEXANOL, D TAMOL 731, A. If you could start

with these, it would help. Chris”. Chris confirmed that as he

added new buttons to his part of the project, he would then notify

you that his buttons were available for you to access and add the

appropriate text as per your assignment. Your tasks were

significantly differentfromthose of Chris. Chris was engaged and

assigned a project for new additions to the system for CCC. You

were assigned the task of adding text to both existing buttons on

the manifold and the additions that Chris made for the CCC

Project. However, as originally indicated to you, mistakes were

found in the system with the text additions you had been assigned

and responsible for.

Regarding the disruption of your work

Asfar as you having to abruptly turn over the system to Chris during the

60

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 60 of 108
week of March 22, which you indicate caused interruption to your work,

we have an e-mail that was sent by you to Phillip Boyd with a copy to

Dennis Swanson, Dennis Recca, Rick Yama, Paul Tomaszewski, Jim

Baker and Bernard Hilton stating on Thursday March 18th that, “Cell’s

2 and 3 are now complete . . .” Based upon your e-mail you indicated

that your assignment was complete. Your claims that your work was

interrupted and there was a lack of coordination appear to be unfounded.

Regarding Workplace Safety and Operations

- Please be advised that Benjamin Moore & Co takes workplace

health and safety seriously. The health and safety of our

employees is paramount. At no time were you forced to work

under unsafe conditions nor were your [sic] pressured to make

changes or updates with out ample time to do so. As a Benjamin

Moore employee you will be required to meet deadlines but never

at the expense of accurately and safely completing your work.

- Rick pointed out to you that there were not appropriate controls

put in place to verify and audit the results of your work.

Whenever embarking on a project, a controls process should be

outlined and updatesto the system must be verified prior into live

production. In your e-mail to me you stated, “. . . to insist that I

work in the system while someone else is in the same system to

rush me through this and not validate the changes made . . .”. At

no time, did anyone instruct you to not validate your work;

moreover, thisstatement contradicts your earlier e-mail to Dennis

Swanson and team that stated the work was completed.

Tracy, you have been directed and encouraged over the last year to

foster communications with your supervisors and inform them of issues

or delays in your work. At no time did you proactively reach out to

management to express the concerns you are now calling out. Rick and

the rest of the management team have, and will continue to, ask for

status updates and delivery of projects according to deadlines which is

well within their scope and responsibilities. However, you also have an

obligation to notify them when there are roadblocks or difficulties in

achieving the task so they can help you.

61

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 61 of 108
In your e-mail to us dated April 29, 2010, you had concerns about

theworkload and your managers’ qualifications which we also want

to address:

Regarding Engineering Workload:

- Once again, you continue to question the issue of the on-call

workload and remuneration. The on-call schedule is set by your

management team. Whether you agree with it or not, it is

incumbent upon you to follow Rick’s direction. Again we’ve

looked into this matter and have determined that there have been

no unreasonable demands placed upon you for on-call work

responses. As a Controls Engineer, handling on-call requests is

part of your job responsibilities. In fact, this issue was addressed

by both Liz Edwards and me in an email to you dated August 3,

2009. Also contrary to your statement.

Statement regarding Managers Qualifications and Treatment:

- Tracy you continue to question your managers’ qualifications and

demean their expertise. For instance, Rick Yama has over 30

years of experience and you consistently write to me about your

perception of him. While we understand that you were upset over

the decision to hire Rick instead of you, the decision has been

made and we ask that you notslander Rick’s skills, qualifications

or experiences. While you continue to allege that Rick belittles

your work and is condescending to you, there have been

occasions where your communications to Rick, your current

manager, and to Dennis Recca, your prior direct manager were

inappropriate and insubordinate.

Throughout all of our investigations, we have been quite objective to

share our findings and conclusions with you including the need for you

to focus on your communications style — we have consistently found

it to be ineffective in building strong working relationships and we have

numerous examples of this. Again, we ask that you too strive to foster

open communications and dialogue with your management team. This

62

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 62 of 108
is one of the foundational areas that is needed in order to be successful

at Benjamin Moore & Co.

There is quite a bit of information contained in this letter. Please let me

know if you would like to discuss.

Doc. no. 66-14 (Exhibits to Pallozzi Deposition), at ECF 4-6.

Following the termination of plaintiff’s FWA, she requested, and was

permitted, to leave work early on Wednesday afternoons to attend a doctor’s

appointment.

102 On Wednesday, August 11, 2010, Benjamin Moore requested a note

from Sori to substantiate plaintiff’s doctor’s visit for that day.

103 Plaintiff responded

the next day:

Per your request is an excuse for my doctor’s visit on, yesterday. 

However, it is my understanding (as I have asked many individuals,

here) about the doctor’s excuse policy and I am told that you need an

excuse when you are out sick for three days or more. Although, the

employee handbook states that BM has the right to request an excuse

with any absence, I have never abused the system and there is no other

reason for your request other than retaliation. You and Dennis are

targeting me and treating me differently from other employees in the

company.

Also, I will continue my appointments, weekly which will be reflected

on my calendar.

Thank you,

Tracy Jones-Sanders

102

 Doc. no. 66-10 (Edwards Deposition), at 120.

103

 Doc. no. 66-2 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 202-03.

63

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 63 of 108
Doc. no. 66-14 (Exhibits to Pallozzi Deposition), at ECF 7. Plaintiff attached a note

to her email, signed by Sori, indicating that plaintiff was at a doctor’s appointment

on August 11, 2010, and that Sori’s office would not fax an excuse or any patient

information.

104

 Edwards responded:

Hi Tracy,

You are correct that Doctor’s notes are generally requested when a [sic]

employee is out sick for 3 or more days. However, as you also [sic]

aware, BM has the right to request a note for any number of days sick. 

Given that you were just asked to report to work on Wednesdays (rather

than working remotely), a doctor’s note to confirmyou [sic] visit on that

day is being requested. It does not need to be faxed: you should just

request a note at the time of your visit and bring it back to work with

you.

Also, you mentioned that you have weekly doctor’s appointments. 

You’ll need to make every effort to make those appointments during

your non-Core working hours. Again, you are requested to report to

work every Wednesday during your regularly scheduled hours.

Thanks, Liz

Id.

On August 18, 2010, Edwards sent plaintiff the following email:

From: Edwards, Liz

Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 4:39 PM

To: Sanders, Tracy

Cc: Pallozzi, Terry

Subject: RE: Report of Retaliation - Working from Home Ability

104

See doc. no. 66-4 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 35.

64

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 64 of 108
Terminated Jeopardizing After Hour Support/Automation Equipment

Missing from my Office

Hi Tracy,

I would like to clarify some of the items in both of your e-mail notes to

me - one below and a subsequent e-mail dated August 13, 2010 at 12:49

pm.

With regard to your claim that you are entitled to overtime, once again,

we examined the role of Controls Engineer and confirm to you that this

role is Exempt as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Therefore,

any incumbent in this role is not entitled to overtime.

Secondly, On-Call is part of the responsibilities of your role; although

it is not specifically highlighted in the Job Description, it’s a

responsibility that was communicated to you in the past and we foresee

On-Call coverage continuing to be a part of this job responsibility in the

future.

You are correct that arrangements have been made so that you will only

be required to support the plants during your normal work day, which

is now 7:30AM-3:30PM. We have granted a reasonable accommodation

in light of your doctor’s request dated August 3, 2010; however, this

accommodation istemporary in nature given the requirements of the job.

We will need to further explore the anticipated length needed for this

accommodation with your medical provider. Please be aware that once

the accommodation is lifted, we foresee splitting the On-Call hours

between Rick and you as outlined in my note to you below.

In your second e-mail to me, you’ve requested another accommodation

which is to be excused from work every Wednesday afternoon around

12:30-1:00 PM to attend your doctor appointments. Given the nature of

your role, as well as your rebuttal to report to work at the Pell City site

on Wednesdays, prior to granting this accommodation to you, we would

like Diane Delikat, the company’s nurse, to speak directly with your two

medical providers as part of our due diligence process. This will help us

65

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 65 of 108
to better ascertain the accommodation that we will need to make for you.

In order for Diane Delikat to speak with your medical providers, you

will need to grant her permission by e-mailing her with the following

information:

- Name of the two Medical Providers

- Address

- Telephone #’s

Until you provide Diane with your permission and the providers’

information, we are not in a position to contact your providersto discuss

the specific needs of your requests to make a reasonable

accommodation. Tracy, we truly need your cooperation in order to allow

us to properly consider your request for any accommodation by the

company.

Regarding some of the other subjects that you’ve noted in your e-mail,

it would be highly inappropriate for me to share any information with

you pertaining to Gerald or any other employee. Regarding

communications with OSHA, any pending OSHA complaints will be

responded to accordingly by the company.

Regards, Liz

Doc. no. 66-5 (Exhibitsto Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 34-35. The next day, plaintiff

sent an email to Edwards, Pallozzi, and others stating that she was taking prescribed

medication for insomnia that impaired her ability to function outside of her normal

hours of work.

105

 Attached to plaintiff’s email was the following letter from Sori:

Dear Ms. Edwards:

I am writing this letter as a follow-up to my return-to-work letter dated

105

 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 183-84

66

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 66 of 108
August 2, 2010 so that Ms. Jones-Sanders will improve and not

decompensate. I would like to refer to the letter received from

Corporate Nurse, Diane Delikat, dated August 5, 2010, in which she

stated that “Ms. Jones-Sanders will only be required to support plants

during the course of her normal work day,” which I understand is 7:00

am to 3:30 pm. My recommendations are that she continue with this

work routine, and thatshe have no overtime work added to her schedule.

Doc. no. 66-4 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 36.

Delikat purportedly faxed Sori a standard Reasonable Accommodation

questionnaire to complete on behalf of plaintiff on August 24, 2010, and again on

September 1, 2010.

106 Sori never responded, even though Delikat left messages on

Sori’s phone.107

On August 31, 2010, plaintiff sent the following email to Pallozzi, Edwards,

Yama, and Zafor Ullah, an investigator with OSHA:

Terry,

Under the circumstances of a hostile work environment and continued

threats, I have a right to protect myself from the kind of behavior that

Rick has exhibited towards me. He and Dennis Recca’s behavior is what

has been inappropriate and insubordinate but everything they do to me

is alright with you because your goal is to fire me or force me to quit. It

is not unreasonable for a neutral third party to be in attendance (HR is

not natural), [sic] it is fair under the circumstances. However, since you

will not make any attempts to correct engineering management’s

behavior or remove me from the blatant acts of retaliation asrecognized

106

See sealed Exhibit 11 attached to Sori’s deposition, on file with this court. It is disputed

that Delikat faxed Sori the questionnaire on August 24 and September 1, 2010 because Sori does not

recall the document. See doc. no. 71-1 (Brief in Opposition to Summary Judgment), at 4.

107

 Doc. no. 66-15 (Delikat Deposition), at 22.

67

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 67 of 108
by OSHA’sinvestigator Ullah who stated that there isretaliation byBM

towards me, a neutral third party should be an option. Please know that

your continued denial of the existence of discrimination/retaliation does

not mean that it is not happening. If I perceive that I am threatened by

their behavior and I have let HR know that I feel this way, you are

obligated to correct it without threats to terminate me. I have a right to

protect myself and I do not think you will find anyone who would

disagree.

Therefore, since you are threatening and forcing me to attend, alone and

without representation, I will meet with Rick and listen to what he has

say with the door open. Since you are not willing to correct

managements [sic] behavior or remove me from the mistreatment as

requested by my medical provider, I am not willing to be provoked by

Rick’s demeanor so please know that before I allow him to talk to me

inappropriately, as he has done in the past or should the conversation

escalate, I will excuse myself.

Thank you,

Tracy Jones-Sanders, EE

Doc. no. 72-5 (Exhibit 5 to Plaintiff’s Response), at ECF 4. Palozzi emailed the

following response:

Tracy,

Liz is currently on vacation. She will respond to your e-mail in detail

once she returns next week. However, as you know, the company has

thoroughly investigated all of your prior claims of discrimination,

hostile work environment and retaliation and in each and every instance

has found them to be without merit. Futhmore, [sic] we have never 

found either Rick Yama or Dennis Recca’s behavior to you to be either

inappropriate or insubordinate. To the contrary, we have consulted you

on multiple occasions and advised you that the conduct you have

displayed to your managers was inappropriate and insubordinate.

68

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 68 of 108
It is our understanding that Rick’s scheduled meeting with you this

afternoon is simply to receive updates on ongoing projects which is

within his discretion as your manager. Although you previously

indicated that you did not want HR to be a party to this discussion, I will

now be attending via telephone. Please feel free to contact me within the

next hour if you have any other concerns or questions.

Terry Pallozzi

Id. at ECF 3.

On September 13, 2010, Edwards mailed a letter to Sori requesting that she

complete the Reasonable Accommodation questionnaire.108 Edwards also asked

plaintiff to have another medical provider complete the questionnaire if plaintiff was

unable to have Sori complete it.

109 Finally, Benjamin Moore received a note from

Toni Roberson, a provider in the same facility as Sori, stating that he “completes

FML forms only in relation to work status.”110

On October 4, 2010, plaintiff sent an email to Edwards and the EEOC stating

that she believed she was being discriminated and retaliated against based upon her

race and her FMLA leave because Benjamin Moore changed her job duties,

prohibited her from the Resin area, and circumvented her communications.

111 On

October 6, 2010, Edwards sent the following email to plaintiff:

108

See sealed Exhibit 11 attached to Sori’s deposition, on file with this court.

109

 Doc. no. 66-10 (Edwards Deposition), at 81-82.

110

See doc. no. 66-4 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 40.

111

 Doc. no. 72-5 (Exhibit 5 to Plaintiff’s Response), at ECF 2.

69

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 69 of 108
Dear Tracy,

Thisisin response to your latest e-mailsto me dated September 28 2010

and October 4, 2010. As you’re well aware, we have made several

attempts to obtain medical documentation in order to assess if there is

a need to continue the accommodations already granted to you, as well

as to determine whether a different accommodation would be best for

you and the company.

You are also aware that we have made several attempts to obtain

medical documentation from your medical providers that you have

selected. To date, we have not received sufficient information fromyour

providers to confirm your disability and to assess the type of reasonable

accommodation you require in order to fulfill the essential functions of

your job. To date, the information provided by your medical providers

has been as follows:

- On August 2, 2010 from Pam Sori, your medical

provider - “Tracy is permitted to work her usual duties

independently; she should not have sole responsibility for

plant support 7 days a weak: such dutiesshould be divided

equally.”

Based on this letter, we needed to confirm your ability to

fulfill all the essential functions of a Controls Engineer

including, but limited to, working with ether employees.

We also advised your medical provider that you would not

be working independently and would continue to report to

your current manager, as well as take direction and work

on projects as assigned by your manager.

- On August 4, 2010 from Pam Sori, we received a letter

stating “Yes” which confirmed our understanding of the

August 2nd letter. However, although your doctor

confirmed your ability to return to work with full duties,

you began to leave regularly for doctor’s visits during

normal business hours. As a result, your manager rightfully

70

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 70 of 108
requested that you provide a doctor’s note to confirm your

absences.

- On August 11, 2010 from Pam Sori - After requesting a

doctor’s note to substantiate your weekly doctor’s visits,

your doctor indicated “we don’t fax excuses or any patient

information over fax”. Given this response, you and I

exchanged e-mails regarding other ways to provide

medica1 documentation (i.e., bring the note with you upon

your return to work.)

- On August 18, 2010 from Pam Sori - A second return-towork letter was sent to us. Your doctor recommended that

you should continue with the routine of working during the

hours from 7:30 AM - 3:30 PM with no on-call

responsibilities.

Since that time this accommodation of having no on-call

responsibilities was granted to you. However, as always

expressed to you, this accommodation and the right to

leave early, every week, were temporary and would be

continually re-assessed.

Beginning August 24, 2010, we asked your doctor to

complete the medical questionnaire which will help us

assess the continued 1ength of the accommodations

afforded to you. After numerous requests, on September

17, 2010, we received a note from Toni Robinson

indicating that he “. . . completes FML forms only in

relations to work status.”

The latest responses from your medical providers are not adequate for

us to properly assess the need to continue to grant these

accommodations. Furthermore, it is ultimately your responsibility to

ensure that the medical providers, selected by you, provide us with the

requested information.

In you most recent e-mailsto me dated September 24 and September 28,

71

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 71 of 108
you have indicated that your disability prevents you fromdoing your job

safely, particularly given your plant support duties. You claim that you

need to “remotely control heavy industrial equipment and the dispensing

of harmful raw materials at (5) plants.” Based on your own assertions,

we are very concerned about your ability to perform your job safely.

Therefore, effective immediately, we will no longer have you operate the

equipment remotely until we fully understand the limitations

of your disability from your medical provider.

Furthermore, since your current medical provider has not supplied us

with adequate documentation as to when you are under the influence of

medication and its possible affects on your abilities to perform the

essential job functions, we have removed all automation systems

including, but not limited to, PLC/Cimplicity/HMI networks and

servers. This will help ensure that we maintain the company’sstandards

for operational excellence and safe working conditionsfor all employees

at the site.

Tracy, at this juncture, it is unclear to Benjamin Moore as to what type

and length of accommodation can reasonably address both your needs

and those of the company. From the information that we have received

directly from you, it appears that there is a continued need for an

abbreviated work schedule of approximately 36 hours per week to allow

for your weekly doctor visits; a continued need to work within the core

set hours of 7:30 AM - 3:30 PM with no on-call responsibilities; and as

of the most recent e-mail from you, the need to be excused from

performing the essential duties of a Controls Engineer.

Given this current situation, we must receive the completed medical

questionnaire from your medical provider by the close of business on

Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

AsI suggested to you in my e-mail dated September 27, 2010, if you are

unable to perform the core and essential functions of your role, you are

eligible to apply for benefits under the Short-term Disability program

administered by Aetna. However, Aetna will also require the necessary

certification from your medical provider to determine your disability

72

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 72 of 108
status and continued eligibility for Short-term Disability benefits.

In response to your e-mall dated October 4, 2010 regarding your

personal request for accommodation, once again, I will summarize the

company’s position regarding granting you a Flexible Work

Arrangement (FWA). You have stated several times that one of your

requested accommodations is to have the ability to work from home on

a weekly basis. At this time, we are unwilling to grant this request to

you for several reasons. First, as we all are aware you were previously

under a FWA which allowed you to work from home every Wednesday. 

As a condition of this arrangement, your manager, Dennis Recca,

requested that you maintain an updated calendar showing the projects

that were being worked on that day. In spite of your manager’srepeated

requests, you neglected to adhere to this requirement. Secondly, given

what you have now stated regarding your medical condition, we are

uncertain whether granting a FWA would ensure that you can

adequately and safely perform the core, essential functions of your role.

Lastly, in your most recent e-mails, you suggested that other employees

have been granted FWA which has been denied to you and alleged that

there is discriminatory and retaliatory practices. Although it would be

improper for us to discuss matters regarding other employees with you,

we have thoroughly investigated your claim and will share that there is

no other employee in the Engineering Department, managed by Dennis

Recca, that has been granted the ability to work from home on a weekly

basis. As in the past, we take your claims of discrimination quite

seriously and have promptly investigated each of them. However,

similar to the results of our previous investigations, we have found no

evidence that supports your claims of discrimination.

Tracy, as we continually try to support and advise you, it is imperative

that we receive the completed medical questionnaire from your medical

provider.

Doc. no. 66-4 (Exhibitsto Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 24-26 (emphasisin original).

Plaintiff failed to submit the requested documentation by October 12, 2010; as

73

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 73 of 108
a result, Edwards recommended, and Marino approved, plaintiff’s termination,

effective October 14, 2010.

112

Following her termination, plaintiff sought and received Short-TermDisability

benefits through January of 2013.

113 During the application process, plaintiff

completed an Aetna Resources Questionnaire in which she stated that she did not

anticipate returning to her previous occupation or any other occupation in the near

future because she was physically and mentally not able to do so.

114

 On November

2, 2010, Delikat emailed Pallozzi, Edwards, and Zoldessy to informthem: “Aetna has

received medical documentation on [plaintiff’s Short-term Disability] claim that she

filed. Aetna is obligated to review the medical info that was submitted. When a

decision has been made I will notify you.”

115

On November 4, 2010, OSHA issued a citation to Benjamin Moore for failing

to ensure that contractor employees followed safe work practices while changing

stainless steel pipes and flanges.

116

On November 16, 2010, Paul Smith, Benjamin Moore’s Payroll Manager, sent

an email to John Toman, Benjamin Moore’s Payroll Analyst, stating:

112

 Doc. no. 66-8 (Marino Deposition), at 16-17.

113

 Doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 17.

114

 Doc. no. 66-2 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 31.

115

 Doc. no. 66-14 (Exhibits to Pallozzi Deposition), at ECF 14.

116

 Doc. no. 72-6 (Exhibit 6 to Plaintiff’s Response).

74

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 74 of 108
According to our records[plaintiff]wastermed due to “policy violation”

— she’s currently attempting to collect unemployment benefits;

depending on the violation she may not be eligible. Please forward me

all documentation pertaining to her termination by Friday, Nov 19th. A

hearing has been scheduled with the state for Monday, Nov 22nd.

Doc. no. 66-17 (Exhibits to Smith Deposition), at ECF 34.

From March 31, 2011 through July 15, 2011, Benjamin Moore directly

deposited money in plaintiff’s bank account.117 Benjamin Moore later learned that

plaintiff received long term disability benefits for the same period, from January 19,

2011 through August 31, 2012, and was not entitled to any additional payment.118

Generally, the company would ask the employee to repay any overpayment.119 When

Toman called plaintiff to ask for repayment, however, plaintiff refused, stated thatshe

deserved the amount because of her disability claim and that Toman should contact

her lawyer, and hung up on him.

120 On August 23, 2011, Mike Farrell sent an email

to Kristina Cisneros, stating: “The bulk of the overpayment by us came from April

1 - June 30th we overpaid $18,396 but you can only offset for the $10,740.”121 The

117 Doc. no. 66-2 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 258-60; doc. no. 66-10 (Edwards Deposition), at

121-25; doc. no. 66-15 (Delikat Deposition), at 25. Benjamin Moore contends that the deposit was

a salary continuation.

118

 Doc. no. 66-2 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 255-60.

119 Doc. no. 66-10 (Edwards Deposition), at 124. The parties do not elaborate on who Farrell

and Cisneros are, but it appears that Farrell was associated with Benjamin Moore, and Cisneros was

associated with Aetna.

120

 Doc. no. 66-18 (Toman Deposition), at 22.

121

 Doc. no. 72-7 (Exhibit 7 to Plaintiff’s Response), at ECF 4.

75

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 75 of 108
next day, Amaya B. Christian, Aetna’s Senior OA Analyst, sent the following letter

to plaintiff:

Dear MS. TRACY JONES SANDERS:

We have recently conducted a review of your LTD claim. Based on our

review, we have determined that an overpayment of $16,873.34 gross /

net exists.

You have been paid LTD from January 19, 2011 through August 31,

2012. However, we were recently notified that you were also receiving

salary continuation from your employer from pay period ending March

31, 2011 through pay period ending July 15, 2011 in the amount of

$3,066.67 semi-monthly. Therefore, an overpayment occurred on your

claim.

While Aetna recognizes that employees may accidentally or

unknowingly be overpaid from these benefit plans, repayment is still

required. As such, we are requesting immediate reimbursement.

Please forward a check payable to Aetna in the gross / net amount of

$16,873.34, to be received no later than September 08, 2011 to:

Aetna Life Insurance Company

PO Box 14560

Lexington, NY 40512-4560

You must respond to this request within 15 days from the date of this

letter. Aetna reserves the right to suspend or adjust future benefits until

the overpayment is paid in full including possible referral of this matter

to a collection agency for handling.

If no payment is received, please be aware, commencing with your

September 2011 LTD payment, $3,424.00 will be offset and applied

toward the Gross overpayment. This will reduce your monthly benefit

amount to $0.00. We will continue to offset your benefits until the

overpayment is recovered in full.

76

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 76 of 108
Doc. no. 72-7 (Exhibit 7 to Plaintiff’s Response), at ECF 5.

122

The following email correspondence occurred between Farrell and Cisnerosin

September of 2011:

From: Cisneros, Kristina M . . .

Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 1:36 PM

To: Farrell, Mike

Subject: RE: Disability claim - T. Jones Sanders

Good morning Mike,

I have been asked to confirm if Benjamin Moore will be pursuing

repayment of salary continuation from Tracy Jones Sanders.

Thanks,

Kristina

. . .

From: Farrell, Mike . . .

Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:47 AM

To: Cisneros, Kristina M

Subject: RE: Disability claim - T. Jones Sanders

Hi Kristina,

We will not be pursuing the portion that you will be requesting as part

of the overpayment. Currently, we have no plans to pursue the balance

122 Plaintiff contends that she “objected to this interference in her disability benefits and it

was only after retaining legal counsel that Aetna’s legal determined that salary continuation is not

a valid offset and [she] should be reimbursed.” Doc. no. 77-1 (Opposition to Summary Judgment),

at 29. However, she only cites to a facsimile cover sheet, which does not support her assertion. See

doc. no. 72-9 (Exhibit 9 to Plaintiff’s Response).

77

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 77 of 108
above what you are recovering but anything could change on the

balance. Mike

. . .

From: Cisneros, Kristina M . . .

Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:41 PM

To: Farrell, Mike

Subject: RE: Disability claim - T. Jones Sanders

would you be able to have a letter sent to the employee advising her as

such?

Kristina

. . .

From: Farrell, Mike . . .

Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 2:00 PM

To: Cisneros, Kristina M

Subject: RE: Disability claim - T. Jones Sanders

I am sorry but we will not be doing that at all. What I indicated to you

is just for Aetna to pursue the overpayment as per the Plan. Mike

Doc. no. 72-7 (Exhibit 7 to Plaintiff’s Response), at ECF 4.

In November of 2012, Laura L. Seeman, Division Chief for the Field

Operations Office of the Whistleblower Protection Program at the U.S. Department

of Labor sent the following letter to plaintiff:

RE: Benjamin Moore Paints/Jones-Sanders/4-0350-11-004

Dear Ms. Jones-Sanders:

78

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 78 of 108
This is in response to your appeal of the decision to dismiss your

complaint against Benjamin Moore Paints filed on December 2, 2011. 

We have completed a comprehensive review of the entire investigative

case file and have determined that Benjamin Moore Paints did not

violate Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

The preponderance of the evidence failed to support that your

employment was terminated because of your engagement in protected

activity.

Please note that this is the final determination of the Secretary of Labor;

your case is now closed.

Sincerely,

Laura L. Seeman

Doc. no. 66-2 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 33.

III. MOTION TO STRIKE

Benjamin Moore contends that portions of plaintiff’s evidentiary submission

in opposition to summary judgment, including exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 6, should be struck

because plaintiff failed to authenticate them, and they contain irrelevant information,

opinion testimony, and inadmissible hearsay.

123 Plaintiff argues that a motion to

strike is only appropriate as to pleadings, and not to evidentiary submissions outside

the pleadings.

124

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (“The court may strike from a pleading an

insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous

matter.”). The law is not entirely clear on whether a court has broad powers to strike

123

 Doc. no. 76 (Motion to Strike), at 1.

124

 Doc. no. 79 (Opposition to Motion to Strike), at 3.

79

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 79 of 108
evidence or other non-pleadings, or if a court’s power to strike is limited by Rule

12(f) to the pleadings. Compare Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253, 1265, 1274 (11th

Cir. 2008) (affirming district court’s grant of a motion to strike an affidavit), with

Polite v. Dougherty Cnty. Sch. Sys., 314 F. App’x 180, 184 n.7 (11th Cir. 2008)

(“motionsto strike are only appropriately addressed towards matters contained in the

pleadings”). In any event, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides: “A partymay

object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form

that would be admissible in evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). Thus, “[a]lthough

the form of the [motion to strike] is not grounded in a federal procedural rule, the

substance of the motion[] will be considered.” Stuckey v. Alabama Bd. of Pardons

and Paroles, 2:11-cv-112-WKW, 2012 WL 3670644, *1 n.2 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 27,

2012). Accordingly, Benjamin Moore’s Motion to Strike is due to be denied;

however, the court will consider the substance of the motion in deciding the Motion

for Summary Judgment.

With respect to the issue of authenticity, Benjamin Moore argues that a

document must be authenticated by, and attached to, an affidavit that meets the

requirements of Rule 56(e) before the court can consider it at summary judgment.125

In support of its argument, Benjamin Moore cites Saunders v. Emory Healthcare,

125

 Doc. no. 76 (Motion to Strike), at 2.

80

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 80 of 108
Inc., 360 F. App’x. 110, 113 (11th Cir. Jan. 11, 2010). However, “[t]he Saunders

opinion does not govern this issue because Rule 56 was amended in 2010. Under the

2010 amendment, which became effective on December 1, 2010, authentication of

documents no longer is required at the summary judgment stage.” Agee v. Chugach

World Services, Inc., 5:12-cv-2119-MHH, 2014WL5795555,*5 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 30,

2014) (citing Abbott v. Elwood Staffing Servs., Inc., 1:12-cv-2244-VEH, 2014 WL

3809808 (N.D. Ala. July 31, 2014) (“The majority of the opinionsthis Court hasread

from courts construing current Rule 56, however, state the amendments eliminated

the authentication requirement and replaced it with a requirement that evidence be

presentable in admissible form at trial.”)).

Under current Rule 56(c), “the inquiry is whether the exhibit can be submitted

in a form that will be admissible in evidence.” Agee, 2014 WL 5795555, at *5.

Federal Rule of Evidence 901 provides:

(a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or

identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence

sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims

it is.

(b) Examples. The following are examples only — not a complete list

— of evidence that satisfies the requirement:

(1) Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge. Testimony that an

item is what it is claimed to be. . . .

(7) Evidence About Public Records. Evidence that:

81

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 81 of 108
(A) a document was recorded or filed in a public office as

authorized by law; or

(B) a purported public record or statement is from the office

where items of this kind are kept.

Fed. R. Evid. 901. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration in an attempt to authenticate

her summary judgment exhibits.

126 Plaintiff asserts that exhibit 2 is Benjamin

Moore’s organization charts, and that the handwriting is her own.

127 She asserts that

exhibit 3 is a composite exhibit containing print-previews from Benjamin Moore’s

Performance Manager System, which she had accessto, and that the handwriting was

her own.

128 She asserts that exhibit 4 is a business directive she received on August

24, 2010 during her employment.

129 Finally, she asserts that exhibit 6 is a copy of

documents from the United States Department of Labor.130 Benjamin Moore

contends, for a variety of reasons, that plaintiff’s declaration isinsufficient.131 Based

upon the declaration, however, the court is satisfied that plaintiff could authenticate

the exhibits at trial. 

126

See doc. no. 79-1 (Plaintiff Declaration).

127

 Doc. no. 79-1 (Plaintiff Declaration), ¶ 2.

128

Id. ¶¶ 5-7.

129

Id. ¶ 11.

130

Id. ¶ 12.

131 Doc. no. 80 (Reply in Support of Motion to Strike), at 5. Benjamin Moore also contends

that plaintiff’s declaration is untimely and prejudicial because it was filed after the parties submitted

their summary judgment briefs. Because there is no requirement that the exhibits be authenticated

at summary judgment, and because plaintiff’s declaration is timely for purposes of the motion to

strike, the court will not consider those contentions.

82

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 82 of 108
Benjamin Moore next contends that plaintiff’s exhibits are irrelevant in

violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 402 and that they contain improper opinion

testimony in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 701 because there is no evidence

presented as to who wrote the notations on the exhibits, whether the author is

plaintiff, what specific issues the notations pertain to, or to whom the notations were

written.

132 Regarding the relevance of the exhibits, Benjamin Moore’s contention is

trivial. If the exhibits are irrelevant, the court will simply not consider them on

summary judgment. Regarding the issue of improper opinion testimony, plaintiff

clarifies that she wrote the handwritten notations in the exhibits.133 Upon review of

plaintiff’s various submissions in opposition to summary judgment, it appears that

plaintiff is not relying on her handwritten notations to oppose summary judgment. 

Thus, the court will not consider plaintiff’s handwritten notations.

Benjamin Moore finally contends that plaintiff’s exhibits constitute

inadmissible hearsay because they contain written assertions of a person made in a

non-testimonial environment.

134 However, Benjamin Moore does not cite to any

specific written assertion that it contends is inadmissible hearsay. Without such

guidance, the court cannot make a determination regarding whether any specific

132

 Doc. no. 76 (Motion to Strike), at 6.

133

See doc. no. 79-1 (Plaintiff Declaration), ¶¶ 2, 7.

134

 Doc. no. 76 (Motion to Strike), at 7.

83

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 83 of 108
statement is being offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted.

IV. DISCUSSION OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

A. Claims Subject to the McDonnell Douglas Framework

Plaintiff’s discrimination claims are asserted under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §

1981.

135

“Both of these statutes have the same requirements of proof and use the

same analytical framework . . . .” Standard v. A.B.E.L. Services, Inc., 161 F.3d 1318,

1330 (11th Cir. 1998). The essential element under each statute is proof that the

employer intentionally inflicted the adverse employment action complained of

because of the plaintiff’s race. See, e.g., Vessels v. Atlanta Independent School

System, 408 F.3d 763, 767 (11thCir. 2005) (observing that disparate treatment claims

based upon a plaintiff’s race and “brought under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983, all

require proof of discriminatory intent”). Thus, the court will consider plaintiff’s Title

VII and § 1981 racial discrimination claims together. Additionally, retaliation claims

asserted under Title VII, § 1981, and the FMLA have the same burden of proof. 

Penaloza v. Target Corp., 549 F. App’x 844, 847-48 (11th Cir. 2013). Thus, the

court will likewise consider plaintiff’sTitle VII, § 1981, and FMLA retaliation claims

together.

Plaintiff attempts to establishBenjamin Moore’s discriminatory and retaliatory

135

 Doc. no. 37 (Third Amended Complaint), ¶ 1.

84

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 84 of 108
intent through the use of circumstantial evidence.

136 Federal courts evaluate the

sufficiency of such evidence using some variant of the analytical framework

announced by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.

792 (1973), and elaborated in Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine,

450 U.S. 248 (1981). See also, e.g., St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502

(1993); Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1024 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc);

Berman v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., 160 F.3d 697, 701 (11th Cir. 1998); Bigge

v. Albertsons, Inc., 894 F.2d 1497, 1501 (11th Cir. 1990). Under that familiar

framework, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment

or retaliation, which creates a presumption of discrimination or retaliation. To rebut

that presumption, the employer must articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory and

nonretaliatory reason for the contested employment action. If the employer does so,

the presumption of discrimination or retaliation drops from the case, and the burden

shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the employer’s proffered reason is merely a

pretext for unlawful discrimination or retaliation. See, e.g., McDonnell Douglas, 411

U.S. at 802–05; Burdine, 450 U.S. at 252–56.

1. Prima Facie Case of Discrimination

Plaintiff bases her discrimination claims upon the following employment

136

See doc. no. 15 (Response to Summary Judgment Motion), at 11.

85

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 85 of 108
actions: her increased workload (including the denial of her request for help with her

workload); the removal of her FWA privileges; the requirement that she attend

weekly meetings with Recca; Recca’s criticism of plaintiff’s calendar entries;

plaintiff’s exclusion from engineering communications (and her subsequent

humiliation); Pallozzi’s comments that plaintiff was “insubordinate;” her negative

performance evaluation; Benjamin Moore’s failure to promote plaintiff to the Senior

Controls Engineer position; and plaintiff’s termination.137

To establish a prima facie case of race-based discrimination, plaintiff must

show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she suffered an adverse

employment action, (3) the employer replaced her with someone outside his protected

class or otherwise treated similarly situated employees outside his protected class

more favorably, and (4) she was qualified to perform the duties of his job. See, e.g.,

Scott v. Suncoast Beverage Sales, Ltd., 295 F.3d 1223, 1228 (11th Cir. 2002); Crapp

v. City of Miami Beach, 242 F.3d 1017, 1020 (11th Cir. 2001); Nix v. WLCY

Radio/Rahall Communications, 738 F.2d 1181, 1185 (11th Cir.1984).

Benjamin Moore contendsthat many of the acts plaintiff complains of were not

137 Doc. no. 71-1 (Brief in Opposition to Summary Judgment), at 32-34. Plaintiff also

contends that these acts should be considered collectively in determining whether theywere adverse

employment actions. Id. at 31. However, aggregate consideration to determine adversity appears to

only apply to retaliation claims, and discrimination claims based upon a hostile working

environment. The court will consider each act discretely in discussing plaintiff’s discrimination

claims based upon her race.

86

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 86 of 108
“adverse employment actions” under the discrimination statutes.

138

Not all employer actions that negatively impact an employee

qualify as “adverse employment actions.” Davis v. Town of Lake Park,

245 F.3d 1232, 1238 (11th Cir. 2001). Rather, only those employment

actions that result in “a serious and material change in the terms,

conditions, or privileges of employment” will suffice. Id. at 1239

(emphasis in original). “Moreover, the employee’s subjective view of

the significance and adversity of the employer’s action is not

controlling; the employment action must be materially adverse as

viewed by a reasonable person in the circumstances.” Id.

Howard v. Walgreen Co., 605 F.3d 1239, 1245 (11th Cir. 2010). Thus, plaintiff must

“establish an ‘ultimate employment decision’ or make some other showing of

substantiality in the employment context in order to establish an adverse employment

action.” Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961, 970 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing, inter alia,

Davis, 245 F.3d at 1239). 

An “ultimate employment decision” is one “such astermination, failure to hire,

or demotion.” Id. For a decision “falling short of an ultimate employment decision”

to rise to the level of an actionable adverse employment action, that decision “must,

in some substantial way, alter the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or

privileges of employment, deprive him or her of employment opportunities, or

adversely affect his or her status as an employee.” Id. (internal quotations and

citation omitted). Among the facts and circumstances affecting whether a decision

138

 Doc. no. 65 (Brief in Support of Summary Judgment), at 24-28.

87

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 87 of 108
is considered “adverse” are whether the decision results in “lesser pay,

responsibilities or prestige,” and whether the decision would “impede an employee’s

professional growth or advancement.” Doe v. DeKalb County School District, 145

F.3d 1441, 1452 (11th Cir. 1998). “Although proof of direct economic consequences

is not required in all cases, the asserted impact ‘cannot be speculative and must at

least have a tangible adverse effect on the plaintiff’s employment.’” Soloski v.

Adams, 600 F. Supp. 2d 1276, 1356 (N.D. Ga. 2009) (quoting Filius v. Potter, 176

F. App’x 8, 10 (11th Cir. 2006)). “While adverse employment actions extend beyond

readily quantifiable losses, not everything that makes an employee unhappy is an

actionable adverse action. Otherwise, minor and even trivial employment actionsthat

an irritable, chip-on-the-shoulder employee did not like would form the basis of a

discrimination suit. ” Smart v. Ball State University, 89 F.3d 437, 441 (7th Cir. 1996)

(internal quotations and citations omitted).

Benjamin Moore specifically argues that plaintiff’s increased workload, the

purported “nitpicking” she endured, plaintiff’s exclusion from engineering

communications, and her negative performance evaluation does not constitute adverse

employment actions.

139 The court agrees, in part.140 There is no evidence that the

139

Id. at 25-28.

140 The court is skeptical that plaintiff’s increased workload — including the addition of oncall responsibility— amounted to the “unusual instance” where the increase was “so substantial and

material that it [did] indeed alter the ‘terms, conditions, or privileges’ of employment.” See Davis,

88

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 88 of 108
purported “nitpicking” plaintiff endured (such asthe requirement that plaintiff attend

weekly meetings with Recca, Recca’s criticism of plaintiff’s calendar entries, and

Pallozzi’s comments that plaintiff was “insubordinate”), or the purportedly negative

performance review affected the terms, conditions, or privileges of plaintiff’s

employment. See, e.g., Austin v. City of Montgomery, 196 F. App’x 747, 753 (11th

Cir. 2006) (counseling memos not adverse employment actions because plaintiff

failed to show that memos were “a formal reprimand or triggered any tangible form

of adverse action such as loss in benefits, ineligibility for promotional opportunities,

or more formal discipline”); Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1261

(“Negative performance evaluations, standing alone, do not constitute adverse

employment action.”).141 Although plaintiff may have been unhappy with this

conduct, it does not constitute an adverse employment action. See Smart, 89 F.3d at

245 F.3d at 1244. Further, while the court recognizes that plaintiff’s exclusion from meetings may

be an adverse employment action where she suffered the denial of a promotion, see Rogers-Libert

v. Miami–Dade Cnty., 184 F. Supp. 2d 1273, 1285-86 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (finding that plaintiff’s

exclusion from meetings was not an adverse employment action because she suffered no “loss in

salary or benefits, subsequent denial of promotions, workplace reassignment, transfer or change in

her permanent job title”), the court is likewise skeptical that plaintiff’s exclusion from engineering

communications resulted in the specific communication issues that caused her promotion denial. 

Still, the court will not reach these issues at this time, because it can dispose of them when

determining whether Benjamin Moore’s articulated reasons for plaintiff’s increased workload and

exclusion from engineering communications was pretextual.

141 Although the parties dispute whether the 2009 performance evaluation was “negative,”

it occurred after plaintiff was not selected for the Senior Controls Engineer position, and it did not

contribute to her termination. Thus, there is no evidence that it resulted in any changes to the terms,

conditions, or privileges of plaintiff’s employment.

89

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 89 of 108
441.

Thus, the only conduct for which plaintiff may be able to establish a prima

facie case of discrimination are: her increased workload; her exclusion from

engineering communications; the removal of her FWAprivileges;Benjamin Moore’s

failure to promote plaintiff to the Senior Controls Engineer position; and plaintiff’s

termination.

2. Prima Facie Case of Retaliation

Plaintiff bases her retaliation claims upon the same employment actions as her

discrimination claims.142 A plaintiff generally must prove three elementsto establish

a prima facie case of retaliation: (1) she engaged in statutorily protected expression;

(2) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal linkage

between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action. See, e.g., Shannon

v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 292 F.3d 712, 715 (11th Cir. 2002).

Benjamin Moore first arguesthe alleged “nitpicking” plaintiff endured, and her

2009 performance evaluation, do not constitute materially adverse actions.

143 The

court agrees. To satisfy the adverse action prong, plaintiff “must show that a

142

See doc. no. 71-1 (Brief in Opposition to Summary Judgment), at 30-33. Additionally,

plaintiff contends that the complained-of conduct should be considered individually and collectively.

See id. at 31. However, a retaliation claim based upon the aggregate conduct is, actually, a

retaliatory hostile work environment claim. See, e.g., Gowski v. Peake, 682 F.3d 1299, 1311-12

(11th Cir. 2012). The court addresses plaintiff’s retaliatory hostile work environment claims later.

143

 Doc. no. 65 (Brief in Support of Summary Judgment), at 36.

90

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 90 of 108
reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse,

which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from

making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Burlington Northern & Santa Fe

Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006). However, in speaking of material

adversity, the Court felt it “important to separate significant from trivial harms.” Id.

Based upon this guidance, it is clear that the “nitpicking” (i.e., the requirement that

plaintiff attend weekly meetings with Recca, Recca’s criticism of plaintiff’s calendar

entries, and Pallozzi’s commentsthat plaintiff was “insubordinate”) amounts to trivial

harms. Further, although a negative performance evaluation may be materially

adverse in some circumstances, it is not in this case. In light of plaintiff’s positive

overallscore in her performance evaluation (which was consistent with her 2007 and

2008 performance reviews), and the constructive nature of the purportedly negative

comments which were accompanied by positive comments, plaintiff’s 2009

performance evaluation falls squarely in the trivial versus significant harm category

the Supreme Court cautioned courts to refrain from finding materially adverse. Id.

at 68; see, e.g., Forbes v. City of North Miami, No. 11-21200-CIV, 2012 WL

1135820, *12 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 2012) (“A critical review of an employee’s work

product in and of itself would not deter a reasonable employee from making or

supporting a charge of discrimination. On the contrary, a reasonable employee who

91

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 91 of 108
received numerous warnings about his work product may be more inclined to expect

such a review.”). Accordingly, plaintiff’s prima facie of retaliation based upon the

“nitpicking” and her 2009 performance evaluation fails.

Next, Benjamin Moore contends that there is no causal connection between

plaintiff’s protected activity and the removal of her FWA and her termination.

144

Specifically, defendant notes that plaintiff’s FWA was removed seven months after

she amended her charge of discrimination, and her employment was terminated nine

months after she amended her charge of discrimination.

145 Generally, a plaintiff can

satisfy the causation prong by “prov[ing] that the protected activity and the negative

employment action are not completely unrelated.” Meeks v. Computer Assocs., 15

F.3d 1013, 1021 (11th Cir. 1994) (internal citation and quotation mark omitted). This

is satisfied when the plaintiff “provides sufficient evidence that the decision-maker

became aware of the protected conduct, and that there was close temporal proximity

between this awareness and the adverse employment action.” Farley v. Nationwide

Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322, 1337 (11th Cir. 1999).

In this case, the delay between plaintiff’s amended charge of discrimination

and the removal of her FWA and termination is too remote to establish a causal

connection by itself. See Higdon v. Jackson, 393 F.3d 1211, 1220 (11th Cir. 2004)

144

 Doc. no. 65 (Brief in Support of Summary Judgment), at 37.

145

Id.

92

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 92 of 108
(four month delay between protected activity and adverse action insufficient to

establish a causal connection without other evidence). However, plaintiff has

presented sufficient evidence that she engaged in a Title VII protected activity

immediately prior to her FMLA leave. Specifically, plaintiff’s April 29, 2010 letter

to Pallozzi complained about unlawful discrimination, and was protected by the

“opposition clause” of Title VII. See E.E.O.C. v. Total System Services, Inc., 221

F.3d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 2000) (“Under the opposition clause, an employer may not

retaliate against an employee because the employee ‘has opposed any practice made

an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter.’”) (quoting 42 U.S.C. §

2000e–3(a)); Weeks v. Harden Mfg. Corp., 291 F.3d 1307, 1312 (11th Cir. 2002)

(“To establish that a plaintiff engaged in statutorily protected expression, we have

held that a plaintiff must show that she ‘had a good faith, reasonable belief that the

employer was engaged in unlawful employment practices.’”) (quoting Little v. United

Tech., Carrier Transicold Div., 103 F.3d 956, 960 (11th Cir. 1997)).146 Accordingly,

plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII based upon the

removal of her FWA and termination.

147

Thus, the only conduct for which plaintiff may be able to establish a prima

146

See doc. no. 66-13 (Exhibits to Pallozzi Deposition), at ECF 21.

147 Additionally, there is a sufficient causal connection between her protected FMLA activity

and the termination of her FWA and employment to establish a prima facie case of FMLA

retaliation.

93

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 93 of 108
facie case of retaliation are her increased workload, her exclusion from engineering

communications, Benjamin Moore’s failure to promote plaintiff, the removal of her

FWA, and her termination.

3. Pretext

In light of plaintiff’s prima facie case of racial discrimination and retaliation

based upon plaintiff’s increased workload, her exclusion from engineering

communications, Benjamin Moore’s failure to promote her to the Senior Controls

Engineer position, the removal of plaintiff’s FWA, and the termination of plaintiff’s

employment, the burden shifts to Benjamin Moore to articulate a non-discriminatory

and non-retaliatory reason for its actions. Benjamin Moore asserts several reasons

for its various employment decisions. First, the company contends that plaintiff’s

workload increased as a result of the 2008 RIF and subsequent staff shortages. 

Second, the company contends that plaintiff’s exclusion from engineering

communications was because many of the engineers Recca communicated with

outside of plaintiff’s presence were located with Recca in Flanders, New Jersey, and

Recca encountered them more often than he encountered plaintiff. Third, the

company asserts that plaintiff’s FWA was removed due to her failure to abide by her

manager’s instructions to properly update her calendar entries. Fourth, the company

asserts that plaintiff was not promoted to the Senior Controls Engineer positions

94

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 94 of 108
because: “(1) she had shown a lack of leadership skills resulting from her inability to

communicate appropriately with her managers; (2) Yama had significantly more

management experience and more recent experience; and (3) Yama had a more

extensive background in both chemical engineering and controls.”148 Finally,

Benjamin Moore asserts that Marino terminated plaintiff because she failed to

provide a completed questionnaire fromher medical provider after repeated requests. 

According to the company, the essential functions of plaintiff’s position required oncall responsibilities, and, after multiple attempts to obtain information regarding the

expected length of accommodations from Sori, Benjamin Moore instructed plaintiff

to obtain the information.

These reasonsinitially satisfyBenjamin Moore’s burden under the McDonnell

Douglas framework because Benjamin Moore “need only produce evidence that

could allow a rational fact finder to conclude that [the adverse actions were] not made

for a discriminatory [or retaliatory] reason.” Standard, 161 F.3d at 1331. “In light

of this, [plaintiff] must now create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the

reasons advanced are pretextual. In other words, [plaintiff] must provide sufficient

evidence to allow a reasonable fact finder to conclude that the proffered reasons were

not actually the motivation for” the various adverse employment actions. Id. at 1332;

148

 Doc. no. 65 (Brief in Support of Summary Judgment), at 30.

95

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 95 of 108
see Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519, 1538 (11th Cir. 1997) (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted) (“The district court must evaluate whether

[plaintiff] has demonstrated such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies,

incoherencies, or contradictions in [Benjamin Moore’s] proffered legitimate reasons

for its action that a reasonable factfinder could find them unworthy of credence.”).

Plaintiff offers no evidence or argument to rebutBenjamin Moore’s articulated

reasonsfor her increased workload and exclusion fromengineering communications.

Indeed, plaintiff was the only controls engineer after the RIF, and the only engineer

located at Benjamin Moore’s Pell City facility. In fact, plaintiff does not dispute that

“[t]he RIF required employees across the company to take on additional

responsibilities of those employees who had been terminated in the reduction or who

chose to leave the company in the face of the reduction,”149or that she “was not

present at the same facility during the alleged communications that Recca had with

other engineers.”150 For these reasons, summary judgment is due to be granted as to

plaintiff’s claims of discrimination and retaliation based upon her increased workload

and exclusion from engineering communications.

Plaintiff does, however, attempt to establish pretext regarding Benjamin

149 Doc. no. 65 (Brief in Support of Summary Judgment), at 4, ¶ 21; doc. no. 71-1 (Brief in

Opposition to Summary Judgment), at 0.

150 Doc. no. 65 (Brief in Support of Summary Judgment), at 9-10, ¶ 54; doc. no. 71-1 (Brief

in Opposition to Summary Judgment), at 2.

96

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 96 of 108
Moore’s articulated reasons for removing her FWA, failing to promote her to the

Senior Controls Engineer position, and terminating her.151 The court addresses these

employment actions in turn below.

i. Removal of Plaintiff’s FWA

Plaintiff contends that Benjamin Moore’s articulated reason for removing her

FWA was pretextual because her calendar issues were from the previous year, and

Benjamin Moore waited until after she returned from FMLA leave to terminate her

FWA.152

Initially, the court notes that plaintiff disputed her calendar issues (the

asserted reason her FWA was terminated) based upon Recca’s letter stating: “When

in attendance at your regular work location no [calendar] entry required.”153

However, Recca still required plaintiff to keep an updated calendar regarding the

projects assigned while she worked from home (i.e., not her regular work location),

andRecca’sletter wassent months before a new FWA was granted requiring plaintiff

“to get a detailed calendar listing of the projects and tasks being worked on.”154 

Plaintiff also disputes her calendar issues because, in response to an emailfrom

Recca telling plaintiff there were gaps for 8 hours of planned or actual activity in her

151

See doc. no. 71-1 (Brief in Opposition to Summary Judgment), at 34-37, 40-43.

152

Id. at 41-42.

153 Doc. no. 66-4 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 10; doc. no. 71-1 (Brief in

Opposition to Summary Judgment), at 2.

154

 Doc. no. 66-3 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 10. 

97

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 97 of 108
calendar, she stated: “You have to open the WFH to see the day’s agenda/activity, I

save the actual time slots for actual appointments.”155 However, Recca sent another

email later stating:

The point of calendar entries is to reflect as close as possible your WFH

work schedule. You have just duplicated the same itinerary on every

planned WFH day including over your vacation. Your calendar does

reflect the full 8 hour schedule as we have discussed but it should vary

each week depending on your priorities.

Doc. no. 66-4 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 20. Although plaintiff’s

email does support the fact that she updated her calendar, it does not address the

specific issues plaintiff was having with updating her calendar (i.e., that plaintiff was

simply copying the same schedule, and was not updating her calendar based on what

she was actually prioritizing for that day). Thus, it is undisputed that plaintiff was

having calendar issues in 2009. 

It is peculiar, however, that Benjamin Moore terminated plaintiff’s FWA only

after her return from FMLA leave, as opposed to at any point in the previous year. 

Based on the significant temporal gap between Benjamin Moore’s decision to

terminate plaintiff’s FWA and plaintiff’s initial calendar issues (over a year), and the

close temporal proximity between said decision and plaintiff’s return from FMLA

leave (only a few days), a jury could conclude that the calendar issues were a pretext

155

 Doc. no. 66-4 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 18.

98

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 98 of 108
for retaliating against plaintiff for taking FMLA leave.

ii. Failure to Promote Plaintiff

Plaintiff contends that Benjamin Moore’s articulated reasons for failing to

promote her to the Senior Controls Engineer position were pretextual because Yama

was not qualified for the position, and Benjamin Moore cannot produce a single

discipline showing that plaintiff wasinsubordinate.156 The court disagrees. Plaintiff’s

primary reason for contending that Yama was not qualified for the position is because

“[t]he job requirements include ‘BS degree in Electrical Engineering or Electronic

Engineering Technology’ which Yama does not have.”157 However, plaintiff omits

a material portion of the required qualifications for the Senior Controls Engineer

position: that the applicant have experience equivalent to a BS degree in Electrical

Engineering or Electronic Engineering Technology.

158 Yama had experience in

controls engineering, as well as thirty-four years of management experience —

certainly meeting the “equivalent experience” requirement in lieu of a degree in

Electrical Engineering or Electronic Engineering Technology. 

Plaintiff also directs the court’s attention to Recca’s testimony regarding

156

 Doc. no. 77-1 (Brief in Opposition to Summary Judgment), at 35-36.

157

Id. at 35 (quoting doc. no. 66-7 (Exhibits to Recca Deposition), at ECF 37).

158

 Doc. no. 66-7 (Exhibits to Recca Deposition), at ECF 37.

99

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 99 of 108
Yama’s qualifications.

159 However, it was Marino, not Recca, who was the ultimate

decision-maker in this case. The fact that Recca did not know what qualifications

Yama possessed is irrelevant in light of Marino’s testimony.

160

Finally, plaintiff’s contention that she was never disciplined for

insubordination is also irrelevant, considering the voluminous amounts of evidence

demonstrating her inability to communicate effectively with her superiors (i.e., one

of the articulated reasons Benjamin Moore gave for choosing Yama over plaintiff).161

In short, there is no evidence that Marino’s reasons for selecting Yama over plaintiff

for the Senior Controls Engineer position were pretextual.

iii. Termination

Plaintiff initially contends that Benjamin Moore’s articulated reason for

terminating her was pretextual because she was not sent the reasonable

accommodation questionnaire until after September 13, 2010.

162 However, regardless

of whether plaintiff was sent the questionnaire at the time Benjamin Moore initially

attempted to contact Sori, plaintiff testified thatshe received it around the time it was

159

 Doc. no. 77-1 (Brief in Opposition to Summary Judgment), at 35.

160

 Doc. no. 66-8 (Marino Deposition), at 25-26. 

161

See, e.g., doc. no. 66-3 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 38; doc. no. 66-12

(Exhibits to Pallozzi Deposition), at ECF 38-41; doc. no. 66-1 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 116-17; doc.

no. 66-11 (Exhibits to Edwards Deposition), at ECF 17-21.

162

 Doc. no. 71-1 (Brief in Opposition to Summary Judgment), at 43.

100

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 100 of 108
sent to her on September 13, 2010.

163 That means that plaintiff had possession of the

questionnaire when Edwards sent the October 6, 2010 letter instructing plaintiff to

have her medical provider complete the questionnaire and return it before October 12,

2010, or risk termination.

164 Plaintiff’sfailure to receive the questionnaire prior to the

Edwards’sletter does not evidence pretext because it is consistent with the company’s

effortsto have the questionnaire completed by plaintiff’s medical providers. In other

words, the company attempted to have Sori complete the questionnaire on its on, and

when she would not, they instructed plaintiff to have Sori complete it. Thus, plaintiff

was given ample opportunity to have Sori compete the questionnaire and return it to

Benjamin Moore, and the company’s reasons for terminating plaintiff were not

pretextual based upon the timing of Edwards’s letter and plaintiff’s receipt of the

questionnaire.

Next, plaintiff contends that there is pretext because there is a genuine dispute

regarding whether plaintiff’s on-call responsibilities were “essential.”165 Under the

FMLA, “an eligible employee shall be entitled to a total of 12 workweeks of leave

during any 12–month period” for “a serious health condition that makesthe employee

unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.” 29 U.S.C. §

163

See doc. no. 66-2 (Plaintiff Deposition), at 216.

164 Doc. no. 66-4 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 24-26 

165

 Doc. no. 71-1 (Brief in Opposition to Summary Judgment), at 43.

101

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 101 of 108
2612(a)(1)(D). An employee is unable to perform the functions of her position if she

is “unable to work at all or . . . unable to perform any one of the essential functions

of the employee’s position.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.123.

Following such leave, an employee is entitled to return to her

position or its equivalent unless she “is unable to perform an essential

function of the position because of a physical or mental condition,

including the continuation of a serious health condition.” 29 C.F.R. §§

825.214, 825.216(c). An essential function is a “fundamental job dut[y]

of the [plaintiff’s] employment position,” as evidenced by the

employer’sjudgment, written job descriptions, the amount of time spent

performing the function, and the consequences of allowing the plaintiff

not to perform the function. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1), (3).

Grace v. Adtran, Inc., 470 F. App’x 812, 815-16 (11th Cir. 2012).

The court issatisfied that there is no genuine dispute regarding whether on-call

responsibilities were an “essential function” of plaintiff’s position. Although her

written job description did not originally include on-call responsibilities, plaintiff

assumed those responsibilities following the RIF, andmaintained themfor almost two

years up until her return from FMLA leave, when Benjamin Moore temporarily reassigned them in an effort to temporarily accommodate plaintiff. In fact, Benjamin

Moore made it clear that the accommodation would be temporary, and that plaintiff

was expected to resume on-call responsibilities eventually. Edwards noted that

“although [on-call responsibilities are] not specifically highlighted in the Job

Description, it’s a responsibility that was communicated to you in the past and we

102

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 102 of 108
foresee On-Call coverage continuing to be a part of this job responsibility in the

future.”166 It is disingenuous for plaintiff to claim that on-call responsibilities were

not essential when, for two years, she attempted to have Benjamin Moore reassign the

duties, but the company never did (i.e., it was necessary that plaintiff, the only

Controls Engineer for almost two years, perform these duties). Based upon these

facts, plaintiff cannot establish that Benjamin Moore’s articulated reason for

terminating her was pretextual because her job duties were not actually “essential.”

For the aforementioned reasons, summary judgment is due to be granted as to

plaintiff’s discrimination and retaliation claims based upon the purported

“nitpicking,” plaintiff’s 2009 performance evaluation, her increased workload, her

exclusion from engineering communications, Benjamin Moore’s failure to promote

plaintiff, and plaintiff’s termination. Summary judgment is due to be denied as to

plaintiff’s discrimination and retaliation claims based upon the removal of her FWA.

B. FMLA Interference

To establish an interference claim under the FMLA, “an employee must

demonstrate that he was denied a benefit to which he was entitled under the FMLA.”

Martin v. Brevard Cnty. Pub. Sch., 543 F.3d 1261, 1266-67 (11th Cir. 2008). 

Plaintiff contends that Benjamin Moore interfered with her right to reinstatement

166

 Doc. no. 66-5 (Exhibits to Plaintiff Deposition), at ECF 34-35.

103

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 103 of 108
under the FMLA by changing her core hours, removing her FWA, re-imposing her

on-call responsibilities, and instituting bi-weekly meetings with Yama.167 After an

employee’s qualifying FMLA absence, a covered employer must reinstate the

employee to his or her former position or an alternate one with equivalent pay,

benefits, and working conditions. 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 825.214. The

Eleventh Circuit has concluded, however, that an employee who is unable to perform

an essential job function is not entitled to reinstatement upon returning from FMLA

leave. See Grace, 470 F. App’x at 816 (“Because Grace was still restricted from

lifting more than 10-pounds at the end of her FMLA leave, she remained unable to

perform an essential function of her position and, thus, was unentitled to return to her

position.”). As previously determined, on-call responsibilities were an essential

function of plaintiff’s employment position.

168 Plaintiff has admitted that she was

unable to perform on-call responsibilities following her 12 weeks of FMLA leave.

Accordingly, she was not entitled to reinstatement, and Benjamin Moore did not

interfere with her FMLA rights by removing her FWA following her return.

C. Retaliatory Hostile Work Environment

Benjamin Moore barely addresses plaintiff’s retaliatory hostile work

environment claim. The company argues that the underlying acts were discrete and

167

 Doc. no. 71-1 (Brief in Opposition to Summary Judgment), at 41.

168

See supra Part IV.A.

104

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 104 of 108
cannot form the basis of a hostile work environment claim, and that the underlying

acts were not objectively and subjectively severe and pervasive.169 Benjamin Moore

presents no discussion or analysis regarding its contentions; it only states, in

conclusory fashion, that the underlying acts were discrete, and were not objectively

and subjectively severe and pervasive such that plaintiff could establish a prima facie

case. The court will not entertain those contentions without any substantive

argument.

D. State-Law Claims

Benjamin Moore contends that plaintiff’s claims of negligent or wanton

supervision must be dismissed because plaintiff cannot prove that the company

committed an underlying Alabama common-law tort.

170 The court agrees. See

Thrasher v. Ivan Leonard Chevrolet, Inc., 195 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1320 (N.D. Ala.

2002) (“In order to establish a claim against an employer for negligent supervision,

training, and/or retention, the plaintiff must establish that the allegedly incompetent

employee committed a common-law, Alabama tort.”) (citing Stevenson v. Precision

Standard, Inc., 762 So. 2d 820, 824 (Ala. 1999)). Plaintiff does not offer any

argument to dispute this contention. Accordingly, plaintiff’s state law claims of

negligent or wanton supervision are due to be dismissed.

169

 Doc. no. 65 (Brief in Support of Summary Judgment), at 38 n.12.

170

 Doc. no. 65 (Brief in Support of Summary Judgment), at 44 n.14.

105

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 105 of 108
E. Unjust Enrichment

Benjamin Moore contendsthat it is entitled to summary judgment on its unjust

enrichment counterclaims.171“[T]o prevail on a claim of unjust enrichment, the

plaintiff must show that the defendant holds money which, in equity and good

conscience, belongsto the plaintiff.” Mantiply v. Mantiply, 951 So. 2d 638, 654 (Ala.

2006); see also Matador Holdings, Inc. v. HoPo Realty Investments, L.L.C., 77 So.

3d 139, 145 (Ala. 2011) (“To prevail on a claim of unjust enrichment under Alabama

law, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant knowingly accepted and retained a

benefit, (2) provided by another, (3) who has a reasonable expectation of

compensation.”) (citations omitted). Enrichment may be “unjust” for purposes of this

doctrine if “the donor of the benefit . . . acted under a mistake of fact or in misreliance

on a right or duty.” Mantiply, 951 So. 2d at 654-55.

172 According to Benjamin

Moore, plaintiff received a salary continuation and long term disability benefits for

the same time period, resulting in an overpayment of $24,533.36.

173 Plaintiff

171

 Doc. no. 65 (Brief in Support of Summary Judgment), at 44.

172 The court analyzes Benjamin Moore’s claim of unjust enrichment under Alabama law

because Benjamin Moore argued that it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law based on

Alabama law. See doc. no. 65 (Brief in Support of Summary Judgment), at 44 (citing Bell

Aerospace Servs. v. U.S. Aero Servs., Inc., 690 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1265 (M.D. Ala. 2010) (analyzing

unjust enrichment claim under Alabama law). However, Benjamin Moore’s counterclaim asserts

that its unjust enrichment claim is brought pursuant to federal common law. Since the court is not

granting summary judgment in favor of Benjamin Moore on its unjust enrichment claim, the court

will address this discrepancy later.

173

 Doc. no. 65 (Brief in Support of Summary Judgment), at 45.

106

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 106 of 108
contends that the salary continuation was not a mistake, but was retaliatory in order

to cause Aetna to suspend plaintiff’s long term disability benefits.

174 Plaintiff’s

contention is based on speculation. She has not cited any evidence that the

overpayment was anything more than a mistake. Even so, the court cannot discern

exactly how much plaintiff owes Benjamin Moore for the deposits, and it is unsure

of how Benjamin Moore arrived at the value of $24,533.36. Accordingly, the court

will deny Benjamin Moore’s motion for summary judgment on its unjust enrichment

claims.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, Benjamin Moore’s motion for summary

judgment is due to be DENIED as it relates to the company’s counterclaims,

plaintiff’s retaliatory hostile work environment claim, and her discrimination and

retaliation claims pursuant to Title VII, § 1981, and the FMLA, based upon the

company’s removal of plaintiff’s FWA. The motion is due to be GRANTED in all

other respects. The defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s evidentiary submission

in opposition to summary judgment is due to be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED

IN PART. A separate order, consistent with this memorandum opinion, will be

entered contemporaneously herewith.

174

 Doc. no. 71-1 (Brief in Opposition to Summary Judgment), at 44-45.

107

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 107 of 108
DONE, this the 31

st

 day of March, 2015.

___________________________

JOHN E. OTT

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

108

Case 4:11-cv-00397-JEO Document 83 Filed 03/31/15 Page 108 of 108