Opinion ID: 2975975
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Myers Was Replaced By A Male Employee

Text: The district court determined that Myers was not “replaced” by a male employee. We agree. This Circuit has held that “a person is not replaced when another employee is assigned to perform the plaintiff’s duties in addition to other duties, or when the work is redistributed among 8 other existing employees already performing related work. A person is replaced only when another employee is hired or reassigned to perform the plaintiff’s duties.” Grosjean v. First Energy Corp., 349 F.3d 332, 336 (6th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, shortly after Myers’s termination, her responsibilities were split among three current employees after the reorganization. “Spreading the former duties of a terminated employee among the remaining employees does not constitute replacement.” Lilly v. BTM Corp., 958 F.2d 746, 752 (6th Cir. 1992). Although USCC eventually hired a male, Kurt Johnson (“Johnson”), into a new senior management position which assumed the responsibilities Myers had, the record is unclear as to when Johnson was hired. Moreover, the position Johnson assumed was a new senior management position that Myers admits differed from the position she held. As such, Myers has not established that she was replaced by a male employee. b. Whether A Similarly Situated Male Employee Was Treated More Favorably After determining that Myers was not replaced by a male employee, the district court considered whether a similarly situated male employee was treated more favorably than Myers. The district court concluded that Myers had not made such a showing. In order for two or more employees to be similarly situated, Myers has the burden of proving that she is similarly situated to them “in all respects.” Mitchell, 964 F.2d at 583. Also, “the individuals with whom the plaintiff seeks to compare his/her treatment must have dealt with the same supervisor, have been subject to the same standards and have engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer’s treatment of them for it.” Id. 9 Myers says that she is similarly situated to Garnaoui and Lovett because both were males who “bad-mouthed” leadership but were not fired. The record shows otherwise. As to Garnaoui, he did not hold the same title, or even the same level position, as Myers. Garnaoui was two levels above Myers and had the authority to discipline and terminate Myers. Moreover, the record does not show that Garnaoui had the same performance issues as Myers in dealing with subordinates nor was he placed on a PIP. Myers is therefore not similarly situated to Garnaoui. The district court was correct in so finding. As to Lovett, at the time Irizarry questioned him about the derogatory comments made by Garnaoui, Lovett was a Regional Switch Manager. He no longer reported to Garnaoui or to Irizarry. There is also no evidence that Lovett’s position was similar to Myers or that he was on a PIP for performance issues. Although Myers and Lovett were both at the same party where they heard Garnaoui’s derogatory comments about Irizarry, their situations are distinguishable because Myers willingly told Irizarry about the comments whereas Lovett answered Irizarry’s questions regarding the situation. Lovett, unlike Myers, requested specific assurances that he would not be subject to any adverse action by answering the questions. Because neither Lovett nor Garnaoui were similarly situated to Myers, she has failed to make out a prima facie case of sex discrimination arising from her termination. 3. Whether Myers Established a Prima Facie Case Based on a Failure to Demote Myers also claims that USCC discriminated against her because she should have been allowed to accept a demotion by transferring to another position instead of being terminated. In order to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination based on a failure to transfer/demote, 10 Myers must show that: (1) she was a member of a protected class; (2) at the time of her termination she was qualified for other available positions within the corporation; (3) the employer did not offer such positions to her; and (4) a similarly situated employee who is not a member of the protected class was offered the opportunity to transfer to an available position, or other direct or circumstantial evidence supporting an inference of discrimination. Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 351 (6th Cir. 1998). The district court rejected such a claim, explaining: Plaintiff has presented no evidence of an available position for which she was qualified at the time of her termination. While plaintiff contends that a position existed because she was supposed to be part of the reorganization, she has not identified what specific position was available but denied to her. In addition, plaintiff has not shown that similarly situated male employees were given the opportunity to transfer to an available position while she was not. Although plaintiff has named several employees who were allowed to transfer to lesser positions, there is no showing that these male employees were similarly situated to her in all relevant aspects or that they were given the opportunity to transfer in lieu of termination. There is no evidence that these employees had comparable positions to plaintiff, that they had the same performance issues, that they were subject to a PIP, or that they were known to have “badmouthed” or criticized company leaders. Further, Employee No. 1 testified that he had terminated for performance issues three other male employees besides Employee No. 2 without offering a demotion as an alternative. J.A. at 621. We agree. Myers has not identified what “lower level” position was available for which she was qualified. Her reference to a possible position after the company’s reorganization in “application development . . . . [d]oing WAN performance statistics” is not sufficient. Moreover, the record clearly shows that Beeler, a male, was treated the same way—he was terminated and not given the opportunity to transfer to a lower position. Myers, however, says that several other employees, identified as Employee No. 3, Employee No. 4, Employee No. 5, 11 Employee No. 6 and Employee No. 7, were all permitted to be demoted after having “performance difficulties.” Myers’s identification of these employees falls short because she does not provide any evidence as to the circumstances of their demotions or that they are otherwise similarly situated to her. Under these circumstances, Myers has failed to make out a prima facie case of sex discrimination based on a failure to transfer/demote. 4. Whether Myers Established Pretext Myers also challenges the district court’s finding that she failed to establish pretext. A plaintiff meets her burden to show pretext by producing “sufficient evidence from which the jury may reasonably reject the employer’s explanation.” Warfield v. Lebanon Corr. Inst., 181 F.3d 723, 730 (6th Cir. 1999) (quoting Manzer, 29 F.3d at 1083)). With regard to pretext, this Circuit has stated: To raise a genuine issue of material fact on the validity of an employer’s explanation for an adverse job action, the plaintiff must show, again by a preponderance of the evidence, either (1) that the proffered reasons had no basis in fact; (2) that the proffered reasons did not actually motivate the action; or (3) that they were insufficient to motivate the action. Kocsis v. Multi-Care Mgmt., Inc., 97 F.3d 876, 883 (6th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). “To prove pretext, the plaintiff must introduce admissible evidence to show ‘that the proffered reason was not the true reason for the employment decision’ and that [discriminatory] animus was the true motivation driving the employer’s determination.” Barnes v. United Parcel Serv., 366 F. Supp. 2d 612, 616 (W.D. Tenn. 2005) (quoting St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 508 (1993)). 12 Myers’s main argument to establish pretext is that USCC’s reasons for her termination have changed over time. “An employer’s changing rationale for making an adverse employment decision can be evidence of pretext.” Cicero v. Borg-Warner Auto., Inc., 280 F.3d 579, 592 (6th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). In Cicero, the defendant stated in answers to interrogatories that plaintiff was fired for poor performance. A different reason was given at a deposition. Yet another reason was given at the summary judgment stage. Under these circumstances, the panel in Cicero concluded that “[w]hen the justification for an adverse employment action changes during litigation, that inconsistency raises an issue whether the proffered reason truly motivated the defendant’s decision.” Id. As noted above, Garnaoui explained to Myers that she was being terminated for “badmouthing” leadership as well as her inability to effectively deal with her subordinates. In USCC’s position statement that was submitted to the Tennessee Human Rights Commission, it stated: [B]oth Ms. Myers and [Beeler] continued to demean and criticize one another behind their backs. [Garnaoui] also discovered that Ms. Myers still was not fulfilling her leadership duties and that she also was “bad mouthing” and undermining management, and especially [Garnaoui] himself. In its brief in support of summary judgment and on appeal, USCC articulates the same reason for Myers’s termination: Unfortunately, both Myers and [Beeler] continued to demean and criticize one another. [Garnaoui] also discovered that Myers was still not fulfilling her leadership duties and that she also was “bad mouthing” and undermining management, including [Garnaoui]. J.A. at 23. 13 In her response to USCC’s motion for summary judgment, Myers described the deposition testimony of several USCC employees which confirms these reasons for her termination. For instance, Myers says that Heilenbach testified that Garnaoui told him he was terminating Myers for “continued sniping.” J.A. at 196. She also says that Jungclaus “recalled generally that [Garnaoui] told her it had to do with the behavior problems prior to the termination” Id. Myers further says that Lawrence Brewer, an employee in the Human Relations Department, “recalled [Garnaoui‘s] exact explanation to him being that Beeler and Myers were ‘undermining’ leadership.” Id. Myers’s own description of this deposition testimony shows that Garnaoui gave the various human resource professionals very similar reasons for his decision to terminate Myers. Unlike in Cicero, the reasons for Myers’s termination did not change. Myers, however, says that there was a shift in the reason given for her termination based on testimony from Irizarry where he says that Garnaoui told Irizarry the termination was based on performance-related issues. The district court concluded that whether or not Garnaoui told Irizarry that the termination was related to performance does not show or infer that Garnaoui's motivation was based on sex discrimination. We agree. As the district court explained: Whether Employee No. 1 told Irizarry that plaintiff’s termination was for nonperformance does not place the truthfulness of the reasons articulated by defendant in doubt. Plaintiff has admitted that she criticized Employee No. 1 and that she told Irizarry about the derogatory comments. Her conduct was sufficient to warrant dismissal. Whether or not Employee No. 1 told Irizarry the termination was related to performance does not show or infer that sex discrimination was the real motive. Certainly, there is ample documentation in the record from plaintiff’s PIP to justify dismissal for performance related issues. Stating that plaintiff’s termination was performance related does not amount to shifting justifications as described in Cicero. It is at most a collateral reason for the termination, but it does not diminish the sufficiency of the reasons given for defendant’s employment action. 14 J.A. at 625-26. Put simply, USCC has not changed its position that Myers was terminated for “badmouthing” leadership, breaking trust with Garnaoui, and for her behavioral issues with Beeler. USCC has not materially shifted its justifications. Because Myers is unable to establish pretext, the district court properly granted summary judgment on this ground. 5. Whether Myers’s Assertion of Improper Training is Evidence of Sex Discrimination In her complaint, Myers made allegations of discrimination based on interim pay, vacation time, and training. At the summary judgment stage, Myers explained that such allegations were relevant background evidence to support her claims of sex discrimination. On appeal, Myers argues that Garnaoui’s failure to properly train her evidences an intent to discriminate; she does not mention interim pay or vacation time issues. Apparently, Garnaoui put together a leadership plan for another employee, Andrew Spence and noted that USCC needed to help newly promoted leaders to be successful. The district court rejected the notion that this fact showed an inference of sex discrimination because there was no indication as to whether Spence was similarly situated. We agree. More importantly, the fact that USCC might have needed a development plan to train its employees for leadership positions, “does not set a background of sex discrimination nor raise a material issue of fact concerning the reasons for plaintiff’s termination.” J.A. at 628.