Opinion ID: 4329560
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Job Title and Responsibilities

Text: Martinez and Lopez’s job title and duties are material to the resolution of their claims. Thus, the first inquiry is whether a conflict exists between the facts presented by both parties. Furthermore, even if there is a factual dispute, “‘[t]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties w[ould] not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.’” Scott, 550 U.S. at 380 (emphasis in original) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247–48); see also Klepper v. First Am. Bank, 916 F.2d 337, 341–42 (6th Cir. 1990) (noting that “there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find” for the non-moving party (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252)). A party “must present significant probative evidence in support of its complaint to defeat the motion for summary judgment.” Moore v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 8 F.3d 335, 340 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249–50). Lakeshore and Price submitted a sworn declaration by Lakeshore’s Human Resources Director, Saundra Sue Brophy. Brophy attested that Martinez and Lopez were hired to serve as crew. Martinez and Lopez do not contest that this fact. Instead, they argue that although Lakeshore classified them as crew, they nonetheless were supposed to work as cooks with the primary responsibility of preparing food; as a result, they should not have had to engage in “menial tasks” such as cleaning the bathroom, taking out the trash, and de-icing. 4 No 18-1489, Martinez, et al v. Lakeshore Staffing, Inc., et al Because neither Martinez nor Lopez contests that she was hired as crew, we find that it was not error for the district court to determine that there existed no factual dispute concerning the actual job title of “crew” for both Martinez and Lopez. The remaining issue then, is what the scope of their job as crew was—particularly if it was limited to cooking, as they claim. As a part of her declaration, Brophy appended the written Job Description of crew, which includes the word “cook” as a type of crew, but also includes “conduct[ing] sweeps and mops” and “keep[ing the] general area clean” under the job responsibilities of all crew. Lakeshore and Price submitted declarations from similarly situated non-Hispanic crew at the Leonard Street restaurant stating that, in addition to cooking, they regularly perform the so-called menial tasks, and declarations from managers confirming that they regularly assign these tasks to all of the crew. Additionally, both parties cite the testimony of Lakeshore’s Director of Operations, William Savickas. He explained that the menial tasks are secondary job duties for the crew. For example, while janitors are expected to thoroughly clean windows, the crew are also expected to spot clean the windows throughout the day. On appeal, Martinez and Lopez couch their argument in terms of credibility, arguing that the district court improperly weighed Martinez’s deposition testimony, attesting that she was hired as a cook, against the declarations and deposition testimony offered by Lakeshore and Price, attesting that the crew routinely partake in the allegedly menial tasks. However, the evidence from the parties does not conflict; thus, there was nothing for the district court to weigh. That Martinez believes she was hired to work as a cook does not conflict with the declarations attesting that crew regularly conduct tasks outside of cooking, nor does it conflict with the Job Description detailing that all crew, including cooks, engage in the so-called menial tasks. Martinez and Lopez cite to no other evidence or declarations demonstrating that a similarly situated non-Hispanic crew 5 No 18-1489, Martinez, et al v. Lakeshore Staffing, Inc., et al member’s job was limited solely to cooking. In fact, Martinez and Lopez admit that they have no knowledge as to whether any non-Hispanic crew were asked to complete the allegedly menial work assignments they detailed in their complaint. Thus, unlike the “differing verbal accounts of what transpired” in Nelms v. Wellington Way Apartments, LLC, the district court appropriately determined that the evidence submitted by Martinez and Lopez, including their deposition testimony, “do[es] not contradict the fact that other crew members routinely and regularly perform the same . . . tasks Martinez and Lopez were required to do.” 513 F. App’x 541, 548 (6th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, we find that it is undisputed that Martinez and Lopez were hired as crew and that all crew employees regularly sweep the interior and exterior of the restaurant, clean doors and windows, clean bathrooms, and take out trash, in addition to cooking food.