Opinion ID: 786913
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gender discrimination under Title VII and Ohio state law

Text: 10 In order to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination under Title VII, Knox must show that (1) she was a member of a protected class; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) she was qualified for the position; and (4) she was treated differently from similarly situated members of the unprotected class. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); Hoskins v. Oakland County Sheriff's Dept., 227 F.3d 719, 731 (6th Cir.2000) (citing Warfield v. Lebanon Correctional Inst., 181 F.3d 723, 728-29 (6th Cir.1999)). Because the prima facie case requirements are essentially the same under the Ohio Revised Code § 4112.02, see Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n v. David Richard Ingram, D.C., Inc., 69 Ohio St.3d 89, 630 N.E.2d 669, 672 (Ohio 1994), Knox's federal and state-law claims of gender discrimination may be disposed of together. 11 The district court properly determined that Knox failed to establish a prima facie case for several reasons. First, it correctly determined that because Matlock's statements about not wanting women working for him and about Knox being gone if she were ever to work for him again were made ten years prior to Knox's termination, they were not sufficiently close in time to the allegedly discriminatory action. Second, neither the incidents where Matlock made Knox perform tasks that she couldn't handle, nor where Matlock wrote her up for failing to report a fallen fire extinguisher, have been linked in any way to sex-based discrimination — as opposed to sex-neutral animus between Knox and Matlock. Third, Knox's allegation that one Neaton employee told yet another that the employee had overheard, in the break room, Matlock telling Wright that he had to do something about the hose incident, and that he wasn't going to let it drop, constitutes inadmissible hearsay within hearsay and cannot be used to support Knox's claim that Matlock's statement had not become stale. See FED. R.CIV.P. 56(e); Moore v. Holbrook, 2 F.3d 697, 699 (6th Cir.1993) (A court cannot rely on unsworn inadmissible hearsay when ruling on a summary judgment motion). 12 Finally, we turn to the district court's analysis of the fourth prong of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis, which requires a plaintiff to demonstrate either that she was replaced by someone outside the protected class or that she was treated differently from similarly situated members of the unprotected class. See Hoskins v. Oakland County Sheriff's Dept., 227 F.3d 719, 731 (6th Cir. 2000). The district court held that although Knox was replaced as team leader by Kevin Freck after being demoted, suspended, and placed on probation, Knox had not asserted that being stripped of the pseudo-supervisory designation as group leader was a demotion in any meaningful sense. Knox claims on appeal that the position involves some direction of other employees in the absence of a supervisor and is a special designation. Even if this did qualify as a meaningful demotion, however, Knox is unable to establish that the decision to remove her from the group leader position was mere pretext for some other discriminatory motive. Neaton clearly informed Knox that she was being stripped of her position as group leader because she violated the Neaton Associate Standards of Conduct. 1 Knox responds that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether this reason was pretextual because the decision to place her on probation was made in part by Matlock. She argues that his comments and hostile behavior towards her, taken together, constitute a circumstantial case of discrimination. 2 As stated above, however, these incidents do not constitute circumstantial evidence of sex-based discrimination, as opposed to sex-neutral animosity between her and Matlock. Furthermore, Knox's allegation that Wright was unduly influenced by Matlock is based entirely on statements overheard by one Neaton employee and transmitted to Knox by yet another individual, which constitutes inadmissible hearsay, as also discussed above. Thus, Knox is unable to establish that Neaton's decision to remove her from the group leader position was a mere pretext for an alternative discriminatory rationale. 13 The district court also correctly held that Knox failed to establish that she was treated differently than similarly situated non-protected employees. Relying on this court's decision in Hollins v. Atlantic Co., 188 F.3d 652 (6th Cir.1999), the district court held that Knox must establish that a male employee, who was on probation, was not discharged for action or inaction that Neaton had determined shut down a production line. Although it ultimately reached the correct result, we believe the district court misconstrued this circuit's precedent in applying an exceedingly narrow reading of the Hollins decision. In employment discrimination cases, the plaintiff need not demonstrate an exact correlation with the employee receiving more favorable treatment in order for the two to be considered similarly situated; rather, this court has held that the plaintiff and the employee with whom the plaintiff seeks to compare himself or herself must be similar in all of the relevant aspects. Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 353 (6th Cir.1998) (citing Pierce v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co., 40 F.3d 796 (6th Cir.1994)) (emphasis in original). This amounts to a harmless error, however, because Knox has failed to provide any admissible evidence that similarly situated males were treated differently than she was. To establish her prima facie case, Knox points exclusively to statements she made in response to an Equal Opportunity Employment Commission questionnaire. Nowhere in the record are these or other statements substantiated or is testimony regarding these incidents developed. Knox does not indicate that she has any personal knowledge of these events, nor does she indicate how or where she obtained this information. Furthermore, Knox does not present any evidence regarding the terms of probation that these male employees were allegedly under. In fact, at oral argument Knox's counsel admitted a failure to gather the necessary information to support this claim. Without such information, it is impossible to determine whether Knox can make a prima facie showing that she was treated less favorably than similarly situated males. Knox has therefore failed to meet her burden of production under Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (Rule 56(e) requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial). Thus, the district court correctly held that because Knox failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Neaton was entitled to summary judgment on the Title VII and R.C. § 4112.02 claims.