Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-14-05771/USCOURTS-ca6-14-05771-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fluid Routing Solutions, Inc.
Appellee
Pennie Ross
Appellant

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0393n.06

No. 14-5771

UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

PENNIE ROSS, Individually, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FLUID ROUTING SOLUTIONS, INC., 

Foreign Corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE WESTERN 

DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, BATCHELDER, and CLAY, Circuit Judges. 

SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. 

Plaintiff-Appellant Pennie Ross (“Ross”) appeals the district court’s order granting 

summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Fluid Routing Solutions, Inc. (“FRS”) in this 

diversity action alleging gender discrimination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act 

(“THRA”), Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-401 et seq.; and retaliation under the Tennessee Public 

Protection Act (“TPPA”), Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-304, and Tennessee common law. We 

AFFIRM. 

Ross had a very successful career at FRS in its Lexington, Tennessee facility, rising 

through the ranks from production employee to Human Resources Manager. She received 

consistently excellent performance reviews until Tim Parys became the plant manager and her 

immediate supervisor in early 2009. Parys and FRS eventually terminated Ross’s employment in 

 Case: 14-5771 Document: 46-2 Filed: 06/01/2015 Page: 1
2

June 2012. Ross believes that she was terminated because Parys wanted a male in the position. 

Ross also claims that she was retaliated against for reporting as part of her job duties numerous 

violations of state and federal employment laws. FRS claims that it discharged Ross because 

(1) it was unhappy with her performance, (2) the responsibilities of the Human Resources 

Manager at Lexington were being restructured, and (3) it did not believe that Ross was capable 

of assuming the expanded duties. 

On FRS’s motion for summary judgment, the district court held that Ross established a 

prima facie case of gender discrimination under the THRA because she is in a protected class, 

was subjected to an adverse employment action when she was terminated, and was qualified for 

the position. The court held that Ross failed to rebut the company’s legitimate 

nondiscriminatory reasons for her discharge. The court also held that Ross failed to create a 

genuine issue of fact as to whether her termination was in retaliation for engaging in protected 

activity under the THRA because the alleged events either were not protected activity or were 

not causally related to her discharge. The TPPA and common law retaliatory discharge claims 

failed for similar reasons. In addition, the court rejected other acts evidence in support of Ross’s

gender discrimination claim because the nonparty employees were not similarly situated to Ross. 

Finally, the court rejected Ross’s argument that the magistrate judge wrongfully denied her 

motions to compel discovery because Ross was not diligent in attempting to comply with the 

scheduling order and failed to show good cause for her untimely motions. She appeals these

rulings. 

We have thoroughly reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the parties’s arguments, 

and, like the district court, we cannot find evidence of illegal motives behind FRS’s actions. We 

therefore hold that the district court correctly concluded that Ross failed to meet her burden of 

 Case: 14-5771 Document: 46-2 Filed: 06/01/2015 Page: 2
3

proof as to each of her claims for the reasons stated in its exhaustive order granting FRS’s 

motion for summary judgment, and find nothing to add to its substantial ruling. We also hold 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ross’s motions to compel. We 

AFFIRM on the basis of the district court’s March 17 and May 23, 2014 opinions. See Ross v. 

Fluid Routing Solutions, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-01269-JDB-egb, 2014 WL 2168168 (W.D. Tenn. 

May 23, 2014).

 Case: 14-5771 Document: 46-2 Filed: 06/01/2015 Page: 3