Opinion ID: 2981425
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Grant of Motion for Summary Judgment

Text: The district court granted Oakland County’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
We “review[] a grant of summary judgment de novo and consider[] the facts and any inferences drawn from the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Chapman v. UAW Local 1005, 670 F.3d 677, 680 (6th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (citing White v. Detroit Edison Co., 472 F.3d 420, 424 (6th Cir. 2006)). “Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving parties are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). “When the non-moving party fails to make a sufficient showing of an essential element of his case on which he bears the burden of proof, the moving parties are entitled to judgment as a matter of law and summary judgment is proper.” Id. (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). 3 In her statement of issues for review, Gulley states that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Oakland County on her discrimination claim “as well as [her] retaliation” claim. (Gulley Br. at 2.) Gulley does not address her retaliation claim otherwise and has, therefore, waived any issue that may have been directed toward to it. Dillery v. City of Sandusky, 398 F.3d 562, 569 (6th Cir. 2005) (“It is well-established that ‘issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.’”) (citing United States v. Layne, 192 F.3d 556, 566 (6th Cir. 1999)). 5 Case No. 11-1611 Gulley v. County of Oakland
To establish a Title VII or an ADEA employment discrimination claim, a plaintiff is “required to either ‘present direct evidence of discrimination or introduce circumstantial evidence that would allow an inference of discriminatory treatment.’” Carter v. Univ. of Toledo, 349 F.3d 269, 272-73 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Johnson v. Kroger Co., 319 F.3d 858, 864-65 (6th Cir. 2003)); see also Policastro, 297 F.3d at 538 (ADEA utilizes Title VII framework). Where, as here, the plaintiff fails to present direct evidence of discrimination, the burden shifting framework first articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and refined by Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981), applies. Carter, 349 F.3d at 273 (citing Johnson, 319 F.3d at 865–66). Under that paradigm, a plaintiff must first present a prima facie case of discrimination. Id. “Once the prima facie case is made, a defendant may offer any legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action, which the plaintiff may rebut by evidence of pretext; however, the burden of proof always remains with the plaintiff.” Hartsel v. Keys, 87 F.3d 795, 800 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993)).
“[T]o establish a prima facie case of discrimination by the defendant, ‘the plaintiff must show (1) that [s]he is a member of a protected group, (2) that [s]he was subject to an adverse employment decision, (3) that [s]he was qualified for the position, and (4) that [s]he was replaced by a person outside of the protected class. . . . [or] by showing that similarly situated non-protected employees were treated more favorably.’” Clayton v. Meijer, Inc., 281 F.3d 605, 610 (6th Cir. 2002)) (last alteration in original) (citation omitted). In a reduction in force (“RIF”) case, like this one, the fourth 6 Case No. 11-1611 Gulley v. County of Oakland element of the prima facie case is modified to require the plaintiff to submit “additional direct, circumstantial, or statistical evidence tending to indicate that the employer singled out the plaintiff for discharge for impermissible reasons.” Rowan v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., Inc., 360 F.3d 544, 547 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 350 (6th Cir. 1998)). “A [RIF] situation occurs when business considerations cause an employer to eliminate one or more positions within the company.” Barnes v. GenCorp, Inc., 896 F.2d 1457, 1465 (6th Cir. 1990). Modification of the fourth element in a RIF situation is required because “[w]hen an employer is forced to reduce its staff for economic reasons, the most common legitimate reason for the discharge is the RIF itself.” Brocklehurst v. PPG Indus., Inc., 123 F.3d 890, 896 (6th Cir. 1997) (citing Barnes, 896 F.2d at 1465). Gulley contends that the district court “ignor[ed] [her] prima facie evidence of race, color, and gender discrimination.” (Gulley Br. at 14.) Gulley presents a litany of cost reduction suggestions that she claims would have saved her position and been more cost effective to Oakland County. She posits that “Oakland County’s failure to adopt these budget actions, with significant cost savings, belie its claim of a RIF.” Id. at 20 (concluding that “the cost savings for the elimination of [Gulley]’s position was negligible at best”). However, as the district court correctly explained, the business decision of Oakland County to eliminate the FSC position held by Gulley should not be questioned by a court in the absence of evidence of an impermissible motive, even if it was not the most cost effective decision. (Dist. Ct. Op. Granting Mot. Summ. J., Dist. Ct. Docket No. 33, at 4.) We have previously explained: It is not the prerogative of the courts to engage in the post-hoc management of the 7 Case No. 11-1611 Gulley v. County of Oakland employer’s internal affairs by second-guessing how personnel could have been more equitably allotted, or cost-savings better realized. See, e.g., Graves v. Fleetguard, Inc., 198 F.3d 245 (Table), 1999 WL 993963, at  (6th Cir. Oct. 21, 1999) (quoting Ackerman v. Diamond Shamrock Corp., 670 F.2d 66, 70 (6th Cir. 1982) (“The ADEA was not intended as a vehicle for judicial review of business decisions.” (internal quotation marks omitted))). [The plaintiff-employee] must provide evidence not that [the defendant-employer] could have made a business decision that others might think more fair, but that [the defendant-employer] made the decision to terminate him because of his membership in a protected class. Norbuta v. Loctite Corp., 1 F. App’x 305, 314-15 (6th Cir. 2001) (reduction in force case); see also Hedrick v. W. Reserve Care Sys., 355 F.3d 444, 462 (6th Cir. 2004) (“As we have oft times repeated, ‘it is inappropriate for the judiciary to substitute its judgment for that of management.’”) (quoting Smith v. Leggett Wire Co., 220 F.3d 752, 763 (6th Cir. 2000)). Gulley offered no evidence tending to indicate that Oakland County singled her out for discharge for impermissible reasons. Conversely, the evidence suggests that Oakland County was motivated by fiscal concerns. Oakland County is the only Medical Examiner’s Office in Michigan to employ FSCs. (Aff. of Robert Gerds,4 Dist. Ct. Docket No. 18-2, ¶ 8.) The number of FSCs fluctuated over time, but was never higher than three and, when grant funding ended in 2001, Oakland County created a general fund position to keep Gulley on as an FSC, which it was able to fund for the next eight years. Id. ¶ 9(a). Ultimately, when budget cuts forced Oakland County to engage in the current RIF that resulted in the elimination of two full time positions and the 4 Gerds is the Administrator of the Oakland County Medical Examiner’s Office and was Gulley’s direct supervisor. (Aff. of Robert Gerds, Dist. Ct. Docket No. 18-2, ¶¶ 1–2.) 8 Case No. 11-1611 Gulley v. County of Oakland elimination of the benefits that had been provided to five other employees, it offered Gulley a position in a different department. Id. ¶¶ 11–12.
In evaluating whether Gulley established a prima facie case of discrimination based on Oakland County’s denial of her request to bump into an MEI position, the district court relied upon the analysis utilized in non-selection cases. In that analysis, a plaintiff must show “(1) that [s]he is a member of a protected class; (2) that [s]he applied for, and did not receive, a job; (3) that [s]he was qualified for the job; and (4) that a similarly-situated person who was not in the plaintiff’s protected class received the job.”5 Seay v. TVA, 339 F.3d 454, 463 (6th Cir. 2003) (analyzing termination pursuant to RIF and non-selection for vacant positions) (citing Thurman v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 90 F.3d 1160, 1166 (6th Cir. 1996)). The district court found that the third element of this test was not met. The district court went on, however, to explain that even if Gulley had met her burden of establishing a prima facie case of discriminatory failure to permit her to bump a less senior employee, Oakland County met its burden of articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying Gulley the position she desired and that Gulley failed to show the reason was a pretext for discrimination. 5 The court notes that this test is not directly applicable to the present facts because there was no position “available” here that was given to another person instead of Gulley. We need not address this issue because, as discussed below, Gulley fails to show that Oakland County’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying her request to bump into an MEI position was a pretext for impermissible discrimination. 9 Case No. 11-1611 Gulley v. County of Oakland Oakland County submits that it declined to permit Gulley to bump the less senior employee from the MEI position because it believed that she was not qualified for the position. (Aff. of Robert Gerds, Dist. Ct. Docket No. 18-2, ¶ 16; Aff. of Michael Zehnder,6 Dist. Ct. Docket No. 18-3, ¶ 13.) In turn, Gulley argues that she was qualified for the MEI position and submitted evidence to the district court of her work experience and professional education to support her position. Gulley asserts that the trial court improperly engaged in credibility determinations when it accepted Oakland County’s contention that she was unqualified for the MEI position over her contention and supporting evidence that she was qualified. Gulley’s argument, however, misapprehends Oakland County’s burden under the McDonnel Douglas analysis. That is, Oakland County “need not prove a nondiscriminatory reason for not promoting [Gulley], but need merely articulate a valid rationale” for its decision. Hartsel, 87 F.3d at 800 (emphasis in original) (citing St. Mary’s Honor Center, 509 U.S. at 514). Oakland County “bears only the burden of production; the burden of persuasion remains with the plaintiff at all times.” Weigel v. Baptist Hosp., 302 F.3d 367, 377–78 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253). Thus, the district court was not tasked with determining whether Oakland County’s contention that Gulley was not qualified for the MEI was more credible than her contention that she was qualified for the position. Instead, the district court needed only to determine whether Oakland County had met its burden of producing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying Gulley’s request to 6 Zehnder is the Director of Oakland County’s Public Services Department. (Aff. of Michael Zehnder, Dist. Ct. Docket No. 18-3, ¶ 1.) 10 Case No. 11-1611 Gulley v. County of Oakland bump into the MEI position. As to that question, the district court correctly found that Oakland County’s proffered reason, i.e., non-qualification, met that burden. The burden then shifts to Gulley to show that Oakland County’s stated reason “is merely a pretext for discrimination.” Id. at 378. “Under the law of our circuit, a plaintiff can show pretext in three interrelated ways: (1) that the proffered reasons had no basis in fact, (2) that the proffered reasons did not actually motivate the employer’s action, or (3) that they were insufficient to motivate the employer’s action.” Chen v. Dow Chem. Co., 580 F.3d 394, 400 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Hedrick, 355 F.3d at 460). “To carry her burden in opposing summary judgment, [Gulley] must produce sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably reject [Oakland County]’s explanation of why it” denied her request to bump into an MEI position. Id. at 400 (citing Mickey v. Zeidler Tool and Die Co., 516 F.3d 516, 526 (6th Cir. 2008). “Pretext is a commonsense inquiry: did the employer [take the adverse action against] the employee for the stated reason or not? This requires a court to ask whether the plaintiff has produced evidence that casts doubt on the employer’s explanation, and, if so, how strong it is.” Id. at 400, n.4. Gulley argues that Oakland County’s claim that she was unqualified for the MEI position lacks credibility based upon the County’s alleged preferential treatment of two other County employees: Gretchen Ingram and Keith Batchelor. Although she does not specifically indicate, it appears that Gulley relies upon the third method articulated above, which attacks the credibility of the employer’s proffered reason and, ordinarily, consists of evidence that other employees were treated more favorably. See Manzer, 29 F.3d at 1084 (“The third showing is also easily recognizable and, ordinarily, consists of evidence that other employees, particularly employees not in the protected 11 Case No. 11-1611 Gulley v. County of Oakland class, were not fired even though they engaged in substantially identical conduct to that which the employer contends motivated its discharge of the plaintiff.”). This type of rebuttal is a direct attack on the credibility of the employer’s proffered motivation for taking the adverse action against the plaintiff. Id.
Gulley asserts that Oakland County’s proffered reason for not permitting her to bump into the MEI position was pretextual because, “[w]hile arguing that Ms. Gulley did not have the requisite qualifications, Oakland County provided false documentation that Gretchen Ingram had the minimum qualifications.” (Gulley Br. at 18.) The “false documentation” to which Gulley refers is Ingram’s job application. During the discovery process in the instant action, Gulley deposed Ingram on April 26, 2010. (Dep. of Gretchen Ingram, Dist. Ct. Docket No. 22-24.) Ingram had been employed as an MEI for five years. Id. During the deposition, Ingram was questioned about her qualifications for the MEI position and whether she met the minimum qualifications for the job. Id. at 1–32. As Ingram testified, it became clear that she had not been entirely truthful on her application, and that if she had been truthful she would not have met the minimum qualifications for the MEI position. Id. Gulley concludes that Oakland County’s claim that it denied her request to bump into the MEI position is not credible because, “[t]he unrefuted and undeniable fact is that Oakland County employed Ms. Ingram and allowed her to work for over five years without the minimum qualifications.” (Gulley Br. at 19.) Gulley’s argument, however, misses the mark. 12 Case No. 11-1611 Gulley v. County of Oakland Leaving aside the inquiry as to whether Ingram is an appropriate comparator,7 it is not disputed that Oakland County was unaware that Ingram had lied on her application until that fact came to light in her April 2010 deposition. Ingram certified that the “statements made [on the application] were true, complete, and accurate to the best of [her] knowledge.” (Dep. of Gretchen Ingram, Dist. Ct. Docket 18-27, at 39: 3–12.) There is no evidence before us that would suggest that Oakland County had any reason not to believe Ingram and, once the County was informed of her testimony, it subpoenaed Ingram’s prior employment records, determined that she had in fact lied on her job application, and sought her termination. Oakland County was permitted to, and did, reasonably rely upon the particularized facts that were before it when it hired Ingram. Romans v. Mich. Dep’t of Human Servs., 668 F.3d 826, 839 (6th Cir. 2012) (“Defendant can overcome Plaintiff’s claims of pretext if it is ‘able to establish its reasonable reliance on the particularized facts that were before it at the time the decision was made.’”) (quoting Wright v. Murray Guard Inc., 455 F.3d 702, 707-08 (6th Cir. 2006)). Thus, we find that Oakland County easily overcomes Gulley’s claim of pretext related to Oakland County’s alleged preferential treatment of Ingram.
Again leaving aside the issue of whether Batchelor is similarly situated to Ingram for the purpose of this analysis, Gulley contends that when Batchelor’s MEI position was eliminated, he was 7 “In order to show that an employer’s proffered nondiscriminatory explanation is pretext on the grounds that a similarly situated employee received disparate treatment for the same conduct, ‘the plaintiff and the employee with whom the plaintiff seeks to compare himself or herself must be similar in all of the relevant aspects.’” Weigel, 302 F.3d at 378–79 (quoting Ercegovich, 154 F.3d at 352). 13 Case No. 11-1611 Gulley v. County of Oakland permitted to transfer to another position at the exact same pay. Ultimately, Batchelor transferred back into the MEI position when one became available. This treatment, however, is the same treatment that was offered to Gulley. The only difference is that Gulley would have transferred to a position at a slightly lower salary. In light of all of the evidence before the court, no reasonable jury could rely upon this difference as sufficient to cast doubt on Oakland County’s proffered reason for denying Gulley’s request to bump into an MEI position.
In light of the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Oakland County.