Opinion ID: 2975449
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rodriguez’s Discrimination Claims

Text: “Cases brought pursuant to the ELCRA are analyzed under the same evidentiary framework used in Title VII cases.” Humenny v. Genex Corp., 390 F.3d 901, 906 (6th Cir. 2004). “Intentional discrimination can be proven by direct and circumstantial evidence.” DeBrow v. Century 21 Great Lakes, Inc., 620 N.W.2d 836, 838 (Mich. 2001). “In discrimination cases, direct evidence is that evidence which, if believed, requires the conclusion that unlawful discrimination was at least a motivating factor in the employer’s actions.” Jacklyn v. Schering-Plough Healthcare Prods. Sales Corp., 176 F.3d 921, 926 (6th Cir. 1999). “Consistent with this definition, direct evidence of discrimination does not require a factfinder to draw any inferences in order to conclude that the challenged employment action was motivated at least in part by prejudice against members of the protected group.” Johnson v. Kroger Co., 319 F.3d 858, 865 (6th Cir. 2003). “In direct evidence cases, once a plaintiff shows that the prohibited classification played a motivating part in the employment decision, the burden of both production and persuasion shifts to the employer to prove that it would have terminated the employee even if it had not been motivated by impermissible discrimination.” Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559, 563 (6th Cir. 2000). “A plaintiff who lacks direct evidence of discrimination may still establish a prima facie case of discrimination by proving the elements of [his] cause of action as set out in federal discrimination jurisprudence.” Tinker v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 127 F.3d 519, 522 (6th Cir. 1997). Michigan courts utilize the federal McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for evaluating discrimination claims founded upon circumstantial evidence. Hazle v. Ford Motor Co., 628 N.W.2d 515, 520-21 (Mich. 2001); Humenny, 390 F.3d at 906. The McDonnell Douglas analysis requires a plaintiff first to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by establishing that (1) he is a member of a protected group; (2) he was qualified for the job; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) that adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Hazle, 628 N.W.2d at 521. If the plaintiff succeeds in establishing a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory rationale for the adverse employment action. Id. at 521-22. Once the employer does so, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the articulated reason is a mere pretext for discrimination. Id. at 522. In contending that Rodriguez has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based upon FedEx’s failure to promote him, FedEx first argues that Rodriguez’s proffered evidence—his own affidavit, along with those of McKibbon and Williams—is inadmissible hearsay. FedEx is incorrect, at least with regard to the McKibbon and Williams affidavits, which are admissible non-hearsay. Adkinson’s statements concerning Rodriguez’s accent and speech pattern, as recounted in those affidavits, were allegedly made during Adkinson’s employment with FedEx, to a lower-level supervisor who otherwise would have promoted Rodriguez, and in response to a direct inquiry from another manager regarding the reason for Adkinson’s refusal to promote Rodriguez. It is clear, therefore, that Adkinson made the alleged statements during the course and in the scope of his employment with FedEx. See FED. R. EVID. 801(d)(2)(D). FedEx also contends that Rodriguez’s evidence does not establish each required element of the prima facie case. The district court, applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, concluded that Rodriguez’s prima facie case failed because he had not shown that he applied and was qualified for a promotion or that a similarly situated non-Hispanic employee had received preferential treatment. No. 06-1988 In re Rodriguez Page 5 Before reviewing that ruling, we first consider whether Rodriguez’s evidence concerning Adkinson’s remarks is properly characterized as direct or circumstantial. Our precedents, though admittedly not perfectly clear concerning this issue, suggest that the evidence is direct. In Ang v. Procter & Gamble Co., 932 F.2d 540 (6th Cir. 1991), we2 stated that “accent and national origin are inextricably intertwined.” Id. at 549 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Fragante v. City & County of Honolulu, 888 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1081 (1990)). We also noted that “[t]he [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)] recognizes linguistic discrimination as national origin discrimination” and that our earlier opinion in Berke v. Ohio Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 628 F.2d 980, 981 (6th Cir. 1980), “also3 recognized that discrimination based on manner of speaking can be national origin discrimination.” 932 F.2d at 549 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1606).4 More recently, in Momah v. Dominguez, 175 F. App’x 11 (6th Cir. 2006), vacated & remanded on other grounds, 127 S. Ct. 933 (2007), we rejected the plaintiff’s argument that “comments . . . regarding his African accent and his poor command of the English language” constituted direct evidence, but only “because neither [of the individuals who made the comments was] responsible for the allegedly discriminatory employment action.” Id. at 19. Our characterization of Adkinson’s comments concerning Rodriguez’s accent as direct evidence of national-origin discrimination is consistent with the Supreme Court’s statements on the subject. See Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 371 (1991) (“It may well be, for certain ethnic groups and in some communities, that proficiency in a particular language, like skin color, should be treated as a surrogate for race under an equal protection analysis.”); Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 86, 92-93 & n.5 (1973) (finding no evidence of national-origin discrimination where there was “no suggestion, for example, that the company refused to hire aliens of Mexican or Spanishspeaking background while hiring those of other national origins”), abrogated on other grounds by 8 U.S.C. § 1324(b). It also comports with the holdings of our sister circuits. See Akouri v. Florida Dep’t of Transp., 408 F.3d 1338, 1347-48 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that a supervisor’s statement that the plaintiff had not been promoted because his fellow employees “are all white and they are not going to take orders from you, especially if you have an accent” constituted direct evidence, “because the statement relates directly to the [employer’s] decision . . . and blatantly states that the reason [that the plaintiff] was passed over for the promotion was his ethnicity”); Ghosh v. Getto, 146 F. App’x 840, 846 (7th Cir. 2005) (rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that a co-worker’s statement that “people are biased and prejudiced against you if you’re not white, if you speak with an accent” constituted direct evidence only because the statement did “not belie a prejudicial mind set on the part of the decision maker, but rather observations of how third parties might be prejudiced” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Bhella v. England, 91 F. App’x 835, 846 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that evidence that fellow employees had mocked the plaintiff’s Indian accent was “not sufficiently connected to the actions taken against [the plaintiff] to carry [her] burden of proving that 2 The Michigan courts use the same definition of direct evidence that we do. See Hazle v. Ford Motor Co., 628 N.W.2d 515, 520 (Mich. 2001). 3 We note that Berke affirmed the district court’s application of the McDonnell Douglas circumstantial-evidence framework to a claim of national-origin discrimination based upon the plaintiff’s accent. 628 F.2d at 981. Because the opinion is devoid of reasoning, however, it is not clear whether the Berke panel based its holding upon a determination that the evidence was circumstantial in character or simply concluded that the district court, having decided that the McDonnell Douglas test was the applicable framework, properly applied each prong of the test. Accordingly, we do not construe Berke as binding precedent concerning the nature of the evidence at issue here. 4 The relevant regulation “defines national origin discrimination broadly as including, but not limited to, the denial of equal employment opportunity because of an individual’s, or his or her ancestor’s, place of origin; or because an individual has the physical, cultural or linguistic characteristics of a national origin group.” 29 C.F.R. § 1606.1. No. 06-1988 In re Rodriguez Page 6 the actions were motivated by discriminatory animus”); but see Amro v. Boeing Co., No. 97-3049, 1998 WL 380510, at  n.3 (10th Cir. 1998) (unpublished order) (“We construe comments about foreign accent to constitute indirect evidence of national origin discrimination.”). The question, then, is whether FedEx has borne its burden by demonstrating that it would have refused to promote Rodriguez even absent a discriminatory motive. FedEx argues that Rodriguez’s failure to complete the LAC, combined with FedEx’s claimed policy against promoting drivers directly into supervisory positions, satisfy that burden. Because it is for the district court to make this determination, applying the appropriate standard, in the first instance, see Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 399 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc), we vacate the grant of summary judgment in favor of FedEx on Rodriguez’s failure-to-promote claim and remand that claim for further proceedings. 2. Hostile Work Environment and Constructive Discharge To establish a prima facie claim based upon a hostile work environment, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) the employee belonged to a protected group; (2) the employee was subjected to communication or conduct on the basis of [his] protected status; (3) the employee was subjected to unwelcome . . . conduct or communication involving [his] protected status; (4) the unwelcome . . . conduct was intended to or in fact did substantially interfere with the employee’s employment or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) respondeat superior. Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co., 547 N.W.2d 314, 319-20 (Mich. 1996) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) (second and fourth alterations in original). “[T]o survive summary disposition, [a] plaintiff [must] present documentary evidence to the trial court that a genuine issue exist[s] regarding whether a reasonable person would find that, in the totality of circumstances, [the unwelcome conduct was] sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment.” Id. at 320. “When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment,” a plaintiff can prevail on a hostile-environment claim. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). However, “simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment.” Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Similarly, “a constructive discharge occurs only where an employer or its agent’s conduct is so severe that a reasonable person in the employee’s place would feel compelled to resign.” Champion v. Nationwide Sec., Inc., 545 N.W.2d 596, 600 (Mich. 1996), quoted in Hartleip v. McNeilab, Inc., 83 F.3d 767, 776 n.10 (6th Cir. 1996). The district court correctly concluded that Rodriguez had failed to establish a prima facie case under either doctrine. We have rejected hostile-environment claims arising from facts far more compelling than those alleged in this case: [A] hostile work environment was not shown where, over a two[-]month period, a male supervisor continuously made sexually suggestive comments about the female plaintiff’s appearance, touched her breast as he removed and replaced a pen from her shirt pocket, leered at her, and told her that if he had someone like her, he would never let her leave the house. See Stacy v. Shoney’s, Inc., No. 97-5393, 1998 WL 165139, at -3 (6th Cir. 1998) (unpublished). The Seventh Circuit found that alleged harassment lacked severity where, over a two-year period, a male supervisor No. 06-1988 In re Rodriguez Page 7 and co-workers[] made sexual jokes about the plaintiff, commented on how she should eat a banana, told her not to wave at squad cars because people would think she was a prostitute, stared at her breasts, and touched her on the arms, fingers, and may have once poked at her buttocks. Adusumilli v. City of Chicago, 164 F.3d 353, 357 (7th Cir. 1998). Clark v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 400 F.3d 341, 352 (6th Cir. 2005). Similarly, we have held that a plaintiff cannot establish a constructive discharge by claiming, without more, that his employer’s “failure to promote [him] to what [he] perceives as [his] rightful position created intolerable work conditions.” Hartsel v. Keys, 87 F.3d 795, 800 (6th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1055 (1997). “If we were to accept this line of reasoning, every person passed over for a purportedly deserved promotion could bring an illegal discharge suit, and the distinction between the two would be erased.” Id. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of FedEx on Rodriguez’s hostile-environment and constructivedischarge claims.