Opinion ID: 4542854
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: I. Factual Background XPO1 is a company providing logistics and transportation services throughout the United States—including Kansas City, Kansas, the location of this dispute. Mann, Moye, and McGee all worked for XPO at its Kansas City facility as driver sales representatives (DSRs). DSRs perform various duties, including transporting customer goods in XPO vehicles, inspecting XPO vehicles, and loading and unloading freight on XPO’s loading dock. DSRs must maintain a commercial driver’s license (CDL). For Kansas City-based DSRs, three runs are available: (1) local pickup and delivery in the Kansas City area; (2) “line haul,” the transport of freight from Kansas City to another XPO facility and returning the same day (which could mean the next calendar day, if the driver departed in the evening); and (3) “extended service line,” the transport of freight over a longer distance in teams of two—with one DSR driving to the destination and the other driving back. The trucks used for extended-service-line runs have a sleeper cab with a bed for the non-driving DSR’s use. Management sets the DSRs’ schedules, with no set shift start or end times, because of the unpredictable and changing nature of clients’ needs. So DSRs are 1 XPO was known as Con-Way Transportation Services, Inc., or Con-Way Freight, Inc., during part of the Appellants’ employment. We simply refer to XPO throughout. 2 expected to have “[p]rompt, daily attendance at assigned work location.” Appellants’ App. vol. 10 at 2240. DSRs report to freight-operations supervisors, who in turn report to freightoperations managers. The supervisors and managers report to the service-center manager who, for the time relevant to this litigation, was Mike Lewis at the Kansas City facility. The personnel supervisor handles administrative personnel matters— such as payroll, attendance, time-off requests, the job-selection-preference process,2 and the annual driver-records review—and also reports to the service-center manager. Anita Sloan held this position in Kansas City for the relevant time period. Human-resources generalists handle human-resources matters at the first level and report to the area’s human-resources director, who oversees multiple facilities. For the relevant time period, Maureen Mahr was the Kansas City facility’s generalist, and Kevin Huner (the area director) supervised her. Mahr, like other generalists, could discipline but could not terminate employees; instead, Mahr would make a termination recommendation to Huner, who would make the final decision. As the generalist, Mahr received employees’ complaints under XPO’s “Equal Employment Opportunity” and “No Harassment or Discrimination in Employment” policies (prohibiting unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation). 2 This is a process in which DSRs provide the personnel supervisor their preferences for work categories and, for each category, preferred runs and start times. The personnel supervisor then compares the preferences with seniority: DSRs with more seniority get priority in job preferences. But this preference list only helps supervisors make assignments and does not guarantee what task a DSR may be assigned on a given day. 3 Employees could also call XPO’s alert line to make a complaint. Under Huner’s oversight, Mahr would investigate the complaints and decide how to proceed. A. Mann’s Termination Mann, an African American man, began working as a DSR at XPO’s Kansas City facility in August 2009. In 2015, he was working on the dock moving trailers and connecting containers to trailers per his job preference. On May 9, 2015, a coworker complained that Mann had been using his race to harass other drivers and to safeguard his job. Then, on May 14, 2015, Mann mishooked a trailer, which damaged XPO property and halted production. He later received a letter of instruction as discipline for this incident (citing his poor work performance in violation of XPO Policy 541).3 And on May 18, 2015, the director of operations saw Mann twice using his cellphone while in the yard on work time, a violation of XPO Policy 524,4 and reported it to the assistant service-center manager, Bryan Bonifas. Later that day, Bonifas called Mann into a meeting with him and 3 Policy 541 is the “Employee Conduct” policy, which “provide[s] consistent and reasonable standards of employee conduct” in the form of a non-exclusive list “of unacceptable performance and behavior which may be subject to discipline up to and including termination.” App. vol. 14 at 3451. “Poor Work Performance” is listed and provides the following examples: “failure to work efficiently or to avoid repeated errors; carelessness and/or negligence in performing work; or failure to follow established work procedures.” Id. at 3451. 4 In pertinent part, XPO Policy 524 provides: “[U]nless otherwise approved by an authorized management representative, all personal telecommunication devices should not be in use while on duty or in work areas.” App. vol. 14 at 3237. 4 Mahr to discuss the inappropriate phone use and, in the middle of the meeting, Mann answered his cellphone and held a conversation. On May 28, 2015, Mahr and Bonifas met with Mann to issue letters of instruction for the mis-hook incident and cellphone-policy violations, and to get his statement responding to the May 9 employee complaint against him. But Mann answered his cellphone again during this meeting and refused to provide a statement, saying he had to leave work immediately. Mann told Mahr and Bonifas that he had obtained permission to leave work early, but they determined that Mann had obtained permission only from a supervisor and not from a freight-operations manager or Bonifas as needed. Mahr told Mann to come into work the next day to write his statement. Mahr maintains that she decided to suspend Mann after he provided his statement, because of the complaint against him, his cellphone use, his insubordinate cellphone use at the meetings, and his dishonesty about being authorized to leave early. But the out-of-service message cites only the insubordinate cellphone use (a Policy 541 violation).5 So, on May 29, when Mann handed Mahr his statement, she told him he was suspended. But Mann’s statement, which was supposed to respond to the employee complaint against him, was not what Mahr expected. Instead of responding to the complaint, Mann claimed that the Kansas City facility was applying policies in a racially discriminatory manner and that he was being harassed for being African 5 As discussed supra note 3, Policy 541 governs discipline of unacceptable employee conduct, of which insubordination is one. 5 American. XPO quickly responded by bringing in three human-resources generalists from outside the Kansas City facility to investigate. From June 2–4, these generalists interviewed 128 employees and concluded that Mann’s allegations were unsubstantiated. Instead, they found that all the employees interviewed felt that XPO applied policies in a discriminatory manner but could not determine whether decisions were made based on race, and they recommended that the Kansas City facility be consistent in assigning work and disciplining employees to prevent this perception. On June 8, Mahr recommended to Huner that they terminate Mann for his cellphone-policy violation—especially his cellphone use in the meetings to discuss the violation—and for “his lying about having approval” to leave work early on May 28. App. vol. 2 at 189. Huner agreed that they should terminate Mann but, before making a final decision, consulted the vice president of human resources, Bruce Moss. Huner explained the situation in an e-mail to Moss and provided his opinion that Mann had “manipulated people to get his way through using race as an issue and violated policy . . . by claiming race discrimination because he is black.” App. vol. 3 at 575–76. Moss told Huner to allow Mann to return to work with an “overall performance” letter of instruction, id. at 574, notifying him that “further violation of policy would result in termination[,]” App. vol. 2 at 189. Without elaboration, Moss cautioned that the process used to investigate Mann’s cellphone use could be viewed as an “attempt[] to entrap him.” App. vol. 3 at 575. 6 So, on June 9, Huner and Lewis (the service-center manager) called Mann and instructed him to return to work the next day (a Wednesday). But Mann told them that he could not return until the following Monday, June 15, because he was on vacation using requested paid time off until June 12. So Huner told Mann to return to work on June 15, believing Mann had obtained approval for the time off. But soon after this conversation, Huner learned that Mann had neither requested the time off nor had time off approved. Huner asserts that, on June 11, he left Mann a voicemail stating that Mann did not have approval for paid time off and directing him to return to work by June 12. Mann denies receiving such a call. Mann did not return to work that day, so, on June 15, Mahr recommended to Huner that they terminate Mann under Policy 541 for his failure to work his assigned schedule and for lying about having obtained paid-time-off approval.6 Huner again consulted Moss, who advised that Mann’s lying about his paid-time-off approval in light of his previous misconduct merited his termination. So, on June 15, Huner terminated Mann’s employment. 6 As discussed supra note 3, Policy 541 governs discipline of unacceptable employee conduct. “Unauthorized Absence from Work Station,” such as “failure to work assigned schedules,” and “Dishonesty,” such as “making false/untrue statements to company management,” are deemed unacceptable conduct under the policy. App. vol. 14 at 3452. 7 B. Moye’s Termination Moye, an African American man over the age of forty,7 began working for XPO at its Kansas City facility as a DSR in 1997. On January 5, 2016, Moye was halfway through a line-haul run when a dispatcher instructed him to turn around to meet the “wife of a DSR who had accidentally left his personal/house keys in the truck” Moye was driving. App. vol. 2 at 191. This “turnaround” was unusual, so Moye gave his pay sheet to Lewis for approval. Lewis reviewed Moye’s pay sheet and mileage book and found multiple discrepancies. While Lewis investigated the issues, he briefly placed Moye out of service, but this did not affect Moye’s compensation. The investigation substantiated the discrepancies, so Mahr issued Moye a letter of instruction on January 14 for his not following the established process for entering time (poor work performance in violation of Policy 541) and jeopardizing his integrity in the process. That same day, Moye told Mahr that the letter made him feel discriminated against because of his age and race, and he disputed the letter through XPO’s open-door policy. Then, in March 2016, when Sloan performed the annual motor-vehicle-record review of the Kansas City DSRs to confirm their self-reports,8 she discovered that the State of Missouri had suspended Moye’s CDL for a fourteen-day period about a year 7 The record does not provide Moye’s age. 8 Each year, Sloan distributes a self-report form for DSRs to report any convicted traffic violations (other than parking tickets) received in the preceding year. She then obtains the DSRs’ motor-vehicle-record reports to confirm their driving history. 8 before: from January 20, 2015, until February 5, 2015. Moye had worked during this period, so this meant that he had driven XPO trucks with a suspended CDL. And, though Moye learned of the suspension on February 5, he had not promptly reported it to the service-center manager (Lewis) as required9 or included it in his self-report. On April 5, 2016, Mahr informed Moye that Sloan had discovered his unreported suspension, and Moye provided a written explanation of why he did not report it, claiming he did not know about it. But Moye did not dispute the correctness of the report showing his suspension, and Mahr felt his explanation for not reporting it was inconsistent and insufficient. So Mahr placed Moye out of service for failing to disclose his license suspension. And, on April 7, she recommended to Huner that they terminate Moye for violating XPO Policy 541 by being dishonest10 (in not reporting the suspension) and driving XPO vehicles on a suspended license. Huner agreed, and XPO terminated Moye the next day. 9 XPO Policy 811 requires DSRs whose CDLs are suspended to “notify his/her Service Center Manager of the suspension . . . before the end of the business day following the day the employee received notice of the suspension . . . or prior to commencing employment on that day, whichever is earlier.” App. vol. 2 at 339. A DSR who does not do this will be disciplined “up to and including termination of employment.” Id. 10 As discussed supra note 3, Policy 541 governs unacceptable employee conduct. “Dishonesty,” such as “making false/untrue statements to company management,” and “Falsification of Company Records” are listed as unacceptable employee conduct that may subject the employee to termination. App. vol. 14 at 3452. 9 C. McGee’s Termination McGee, an African American woman, began employment at XPO’s Kansas City facility in November 2013 and started work as a DSR student trainee on December 9, 2013. She became a full DSR on March 1, 2014 and drove extendedservice-line routes. If there was not an extended-service-line load available during a shift, McGee would drive line haul or work on the dock. XPO filled the extended-service-line teams by seniority: the most senior DSR picked a partner for “ESL Team 1,” then the next most-senior DSR picked, and so on. McGee’s lack of seniority placed her on ESL Team 4, known as “ESL Flex” because drivers on that team may not have runs on certain nights (as determined by shipment volume) and would perform dock work instead. In early April 2016, a freightoperations manager learned that a senior DSR on ESL Team 2 did not want to team with McGee on extended-service-line runs, because his wife was uncomfortable with him driving with a woman sleeping nearby, so the manager informed Mahr. Mahr discussed the situation with Huner, and they determined that the ESL Team 2 DSR would have to partner with a female DSR if she was up for the spot. The manager enforced this determination and there were no more issues with the ESL Team 2 DSR refusing to partner with McGee. On April 13, 2016, soon after Mahr had resolved the issue, McGee learned about the ESL Team 2 DSR’s unwillingness to team with her for extended-service- 10 line runs.11 The next day, McGee reported the issue to Mahr. Mahr told McGee that she already knew about the situation and had rectified it. Though Mahr had already substantiated that the ESL Team 2 DSR had discriminated against McGee, Mahr did not prepare a report or discipline him. So, on April 19, McGee maintains she left Mahr a written statement detailing the race and gender discrimination she felt subjected to. The next day, McGee clocked in to work for her night shift but clocked out about two hours later without notifying management and did not return. McGee maintains that, before she left, she waited for someone in management to come by so she could explain that she had unexpectedly started menstruating and ruined her pants, because she was too embarrassed to go find somebody to tell, but nobody came. She also says she tried calling management when she got home but nobody answered.12 Around 7:00 a.m. on April 21, McGee called Sloan and explained why she had left work early the night before. After Sloan determined McGee had not spoken to a supervisor, she directed McGee to discuss the matter with Lewis, so McGee did. Later that day, Mahr learned that McGee had left work without approval, so she called McGee to discuss the situation, obtained McGee’s statement via e-mail, 11 The record indicates that another male DSR may have been unwilling to team with McGee for extended-service-line runs but it is unclear whether McGee reported this DSR to Mahr. 12 Whether McGee made this telephone call is a question of fact, with XPO maintaining that she admitted to not trying to call anyone. 11 and placed McGee out of service. Mahr felt that McGee had failed to adequately explain why she did not contact management after leaving work. On April 22, 2016, Mahr recommended to Huner that they terminate McGee for her unauthorized absence. Huner agreed with Mahr’s recommendation, and XPO terminated McGee that day under Policy 541 for her unauthorized absence from the workstation. II. Procedural Background On March 25, 2016, Mann sued XPO in Kansas federal district court. In November 2016, at Mann’s request, the district court joined Moye and McGee to the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. Mann, Moye, and McGee then filed a twenty-count amended complaint asserting employment discrimination based on race (all three), age (Moye), and gender (McGee), under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to e-17, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–634. They also claimed retaliation and harassment. On June 8, 2018, XPO moved for summary judgment on all claims. On March 29, 2019, the district court granted XPO’s motion. Mann v. XPO Logistics Freight, Inc., No. 16-2196-CM, 2019 WL 1430109, at  (D. Kan. Mar. 29, 2019). The court analyzed Mann’s, Moye’s, and McGee’s discrimination and retaliation claims under the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), framework. Id. at –11; see also infra Discussion Part II (discussing this framework). The court granted summary judgment to XPO on these claims because it 12 concluded that Mann, Moye, and McGee had failed to show that XPO’s proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for firing them were pretext for discrimination or retaliation. Mann, 2019 WL 1430109, at –11. Moreover, regarding the retaliation claims, the court concluded that the Appellants had also failed to establish prima facie cases, because they had not shown a causal connection between their protected activity and their terminations. Id. at –11. Finally, the court granted XPO summary judgment on Mann’s, Moye’s, and McGee’s harassment claims, concluding that they had failed to establish prima facie cases. Id. at –10. So the district court entered judgment in XPO’s favor and closed the case. Id. at . Mann, Moye, and McGee timely appealed.