Opinion ID: 184247
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Chrysler’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Text: We now turn to the propriety of the district court’s award of summary judgment to Chrysler as to Steward’s various claims. A district court’s grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Upshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 576 F.3d 576, 584 (6th Cir. 2009). “Summary judgment is appropriate - 10 - No. 08-1282 Steward v. New Chrysler if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, ‘show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’” Moses v. Providence Hosp. & Med. Ctrs., Inc., 561 F.3d 573, 578 (6th Cir.2009) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). In reviewing the district court’s decision, we view all evidence in the light most favorable to, and make all reasonable inferences in favor of, the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). However, “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-moving party’s] position will be insufficient [to defeat a motion for summary judgment]; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party].” Ganley v. Mazda Motor of Am., 367 F. App’x 616, 621 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Moldowan v. City of Warren, 578 F.3d 351, 374 (6th Cir. 2009)) (alterations in Moldowan).
As an initial matter, before we reach the substance of any of Steward’s claims, we address the effect of the aforementioned provision in Steward’s employment application on the timeliness of her claims. To restate, this clause provided that “any claim or lawsuit relating to [Steward’s employment] . . . must be filed no more than six (6) months after the date of the employment action that is the subject of the claim or lawsuit.” By signing the agreement, Steward agreed to “waive any statute of limitations to the contrary.” In Thurman v. DaimlerChrysler, a lawsuit filed against Chrysler by another Chrysler employee, we addressed the legal effect of this same provision. 397 F.3d 352 (6th Cir. 2004). We observed that under Michigan law, (1) “terms in an employment application constitute part of an - 11 - No. 08-1282 Steward v. New Chrysler employee’s contract of employment”; (2) “contracting parties may agree to an abbreviated statute of limitations so long as it is reasonable”; and (3) a “six-month statute of limitations clause in an employment application [is] not inherently unreasonable.” Id. at 356–57 (citations omitted). Accordingly, we held that the waiver was enforceable and served to bar the plaintiff’s claims insofar as they accrued more than six months before she filed suit. Id. at 358. In this case, Steward filed suit on August 5, 2005. Her claims are therefore barred to the extent they accrued before February 5, 2005. This time bar does not affect her disabilitydiscrimination claims or her retaliation claim, which are premised on her being placed on paid layoff on March 17, 2005. However, her race-discrimination claim and her IIED claim are premised not on her termination, but rather, on workplace conduct that occurred throughout her time under McKerley. Almost all of the specific racial incidents of which Steward complains occurred before February 2005 — that is, where Steward provides any dates at all. However, Steward did testify that the segregated assembly line persisted “up until basically the time that [she] left” in March 2005. Accordingly, her race-based claims are not altogether time-barred; however, Steward may not recover for any incidents that occurred before February 2005. See Leffman v. Sprint Corp., 481 F.3d 428, 431 (6th Cir. 2007) (“A discriminatory act which is not made the basis for a timely charge is . . . merely an unfortunate event in history which has no present legal consequences.” (quoting United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553, 558 (1977)).4 Conduct that occurred prior to that date 4 Steward’s attempt to evade the contractual limitations period by arguing that Chrysler’s conduct throughout her employment amounts to a “continuing violation” must fail, as the Michigan Supreme Court has rejected the “continuing violation” doctrine under its civil rights laws. See Garg v. Macomb County Cmty. Mental Health Servs., 696 N.W.2d 646, 658-660 (Mich. 2005) (overruling - 12 - No. 08-1282 Steward v. New Chrysler “may be considered as ‘background evidence’” to establish racial animus with respect to actionable conduct within the limitations period, but is not in itself actionable. Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp., 556 F.3d 502, 519 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 120 (2002)).
Michigan’s ELCRA provides that an employer shall not “[f]ail or refuse to hire or recruit, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment, because of . . . race . . . .” Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(1)(a). “Michigan courts have recognized that ELCRA claims generally are to be evaluated on summary disposition in the same manner as [federal] Title VII claims, and that both state and federal precedents are relevant.” Conti v. Am. Axle and Mfg., Inc., 326 F. App’x 900, 908 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Harrison v. Olde Fin. Corp., 572 N.W.2d 679, 681 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997)); see also Ford v. Securitas Sec’y Servs. USA, Inc., 338 F. App’x 483, 486 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Cases brought pursuant to the ELCRA are analyzed under the same evidentiary framework used in Title VII cases.” (quoting Rodriguez v. FedEx Freight E., Inc., 487 F.3d 1001, 1007 (6th Cir. 2007)). Under Title VII, “two types of actions may be brought: (1) [claims premised on] ‘discrete discriminatory acts,’ and (2) claims alleging a ‘hostile work environment.’” Hunter v. Sec’y of U.S. Army, 565 F.3d 986, 993 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Morgan, 536 U.S. at 110); see also Wu v. Tyson Sumner v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 398 N.W.2d 368 (Mich. 1986)). - 13 - No. 08-1282 Steward v. New Chrysler Foods, Inc., 189 F. App’x 375, 378 (6th Cir. 2006). Here, Steward has not invoked the hostile-workenvironment theory of discrimination; accordingly, any hostile-work-environment claim she might have asserted is not before us. See Schramm v. Slater, 105 F. App’x 34, 40 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that “a disparate treatment argument is analytically distinct from a hostile work environment argument,” such that raising only one argument “[is] not sufficient to preserve [the other] before this [c]ourt”).5 Steward’s race-discrimination claim must therefore be analyzed under the discrete-act theory. To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under this theory, she must demonstrate “(1) that [s]he is a member of a protected class; (2) that [s]he suffered an adverse employment action; (3) that [s]he was qualified for the position; and (4) that a similarly-situated employee outside the protected class or classes was treated more favorably than [s]he.” Younis v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., 610 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)). An “adverse employment action,” also known as a “tangible employment action,” see White v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 364 F.3d 789, 795 n.1 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc), disagreed with on other grounds, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), is a “materially adverse change in the terms or conditions of employment because of the employer’s actions.” Michael v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp., 496 F.3d 5 Steward does cite Morris v. Oldham County Fiscal Court, 201 F.3d 784 (6th Cir. 2000), a hostile-work-environment case, in her opening brief. See Appellant’s Br. at 26-27. However, she claims nowhere in her brief that a hostile work environment actually existed at the Chrysler plant and conducts no legal analysis of the hostile-work-environment factors. Issues adverted to in such a perfunctory manner are deemed waived. Arch of Ky., Inc. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 556 F.3d 472, 477 (6th Cir. 2009). In any event, the fact that this form of discrimination was not alleged in Steward’s original complaint is itself dispositive. Mitchell v. McNeil, 487 F.3d 374, 379 (6th Cir. 2007). - 14 - No. 08-1282 Steward v. New Chrysler 584, 593 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Allen v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 405, 410 (6th Cir. 1999)). As we have stated, [a] materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment must be more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities. A materially adverse change might be indicated by a termination of employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities, or other indices that might be unique to a particular situation. Id. at 594 (quoting Ford v. Gen. Motors Corp., 305 F.3d 545, 553 (6th Cir. 2002)) (alteration in Michael). Steward has not shown an adverse employment action. As the Supreme Court has long explained, conclusory allegations must be supported by relevant facts. A “segregated assembly line,” Complaint ¶7, R.1 at 7, is of course a serious charge. But at the summary judgment stage, we must look to the evidence and the facts, not to labels and allegations. “One of the principal purposes of the summary judgment rule,” the Supreme Court has explained, “is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 377, 323–33 (1986). At this stage in the litigation, a plaintiff may no longer rely solely on her pleadings, id. at 324–25, but must come forward with “probative evidence tending to support the complaint,” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). Steward and some of her co-workers apparently share a “subjective[] belie[f]” that they were treated differently based on their race, but she has “produced no facts to establish” race discrimination. Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 583 (6th Cir. 1992). As Steward acknowledges, her end of the Viper line was “predominantly African American,” but some white employees also worked there, including most notably the one person who worked - 15 - No. 08-1282 Steward v. New Chrysler directly with her. Appellant’s Br. 24–25. Even more importantly, Steward acknowledges that she chose her own position on the line, “since she had the highest seniority on the line.” Appellant’s Br. 25. And beyond describing the general rule that employees chose their own positions by seniority, Steward disavowed any knowledge of how other employees were placed on the line. See ROA at 124. Her assertion that “McKerley ran a segregated assembly line,” Appellant’s Br. 25, is therefore devoid of any factual support, see Celotex, 477 U.S. at 332–33; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. A blanket but unsupported claim of there being “a segregated assembly line” falls short of establishing the requisite facts to survive a motion for summary judgment. Steward has nothing else to support this claim, whether as a matter of mere labels or supported facts.6 She does not allege that she was given more difficult work than white employees during this time; indeed, she testified that her physical restrictions sharply limited the range of work that she could perform and that she had a full-time assistant to help her. She does not allege that her salary, title, or benefits were negatively affected during this time—or at any other—on account of her race. She does not allege that any specific racial comments were made, or that any specific incidents of harassment occurred, during this period of time.7 6 Being placed on paid layoff, and thereby being deprived of one’s job duties, would surely qualify as an adverse employment action. However, Steward does not argue in her opening brief that her placement on leave was racially motivated, and her cursory suggestion to that effect in her reply brief does not preserve the argument. See Garcia v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 320 F. App’x 356, 363 (6th Cir. 2009). Moreover, her deposition testimony is inconsistent with such an argument. See ROA at 146 (“They accommodate everybody else’s restrictions [except mine,] whether they’re white, black, Puerto Rican, gay, it don’t make no difference.”). 7 To be sure, race-based harassment that “intimidat[es]” or “offen[ds]” without causing economic harm may be actionable under Title VII’s hostile-work-environment theory of liability, - 16 - No. 08-1282 Steward v. New Chrysler Because Steward cannot demonstrate an adverse employment action, she cannot establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, and the district court did not err by granting Chrysler summary judgment with respect to Steward’s ELCRA claim.
The ADA provides that employers may not “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability” and states that such discrimination includes “not making reasonable accommodations” for a disabled employee. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), (b)(5)(A). Michigan’s PWDCRA, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1102(1)–(2), “substantially mirrors” the ADA, and claims under both statutes are generally analyzed identically, Cotter v. Ajilon Servs., Inc., 287 F.3d 593, 597 (6th Cir. 2002).8 To make out a prima facie case of disability discrimination, Steward must establish “(1) that she . . . is an individual with a disability[;] (2) who was otherwise qualified to perform [her] job’s requirements, with or without reasonable accommodation; and (3) who was discriminated against solely because of the disability.” Spees v. James Marin, Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 3119969, at  Clay v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 501 F.3d 695, 706 (6th Cir. 2007), provided such harassment is “sufficiently severe or pervasive,” id. at 707 (quoting Williams v. Gen. Motors Corp., 187 F.3d 553, 560, 562 (6th Cir. 1999)); see also Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67-68 (1986). However, Steward does not pursue that theory of discrimination in this action. 8 We note that the ADA was amended in 2008 to “broad[en the] scope of protection . . . available under the [statute].” Pub. L. No. 110-325, § 2, 122 Stat. 3553, 3554. These amendments “became effective on January 1, 2009,” but “do[] not apply retroactively to govern conduct occuring before the[y] became effective.” Milholland v. Sumner County Bd. of Educ., 569 F.3d 562, 565–67 (6th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Steward’s claims must be analyzed under the pre-amendment version of the ADA (although, in this case, the version applied would make no difference). - 17 - No. 08-1282 Steward v. New Chrysler (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Talley v. Family Dollar Stores of Ohio, Inc., 542 F.3d 1099, 1105 (6th Cir. 2008)). We assume arguendo that Steward is “disabled” within the meaning of the ADA and that she was placed on paid layoff solely because of her disability. Steward does not argue that she was capable of performing her job without accommodation. Rather, her complaint is that she could have performed her job with reasonable accommodation and that Chrysler refused to accommodate her. See Appellant’s Br. at 17, 29–31. Under the ADA, “[t]he plaintiff . . . ‘bears the initial burden of proposing an accommodation and showing that that accommodation is objectively reasonable.’” Johnson v. Cleveland City Sch. Dist., 344 F. App’x 104, 111 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862, 870 (6th Cir. 2007)). As part of this initial burden, the plaintiff must show “that the [proposed] accommodation is reasonable in the sense both of efficacious and of proportional to costs.” Monette v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 90 F.3d 1173, 1183 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting Vande Zande v. Wisc. Dep’t of Admin., 44 F.3d 538, 543 (7th Cir. 1995)). The plaintiff must also “show that [s]he requested the specific accommodation; a plaintiff may not rely on accommodations that [s]he did not request.” Manigan v. Southwest Ohio Reg’l Transit Auth., 2010 WL 2776955, at  n.5 (6th Cir. July 12, 2010) (citing Virts v. Consol. Freightways Corp. of Del., 285 F.3d 508, 518 (6th Cir. 2002)); see also Burns v. Coca-Cola Enters., Inc., 222 F.3d 247, 258 (6th Cir. 2000). The ADA provides that “reasonable accommodation” may include “job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices . . . and other similar accommodations . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9). However, while “job restructuring” is a reasonable accommodation, this term “only pertains to the - 18 - No. 08-1282 Steward v. New Chrysler restructuring of non-essential duties or marginal functions of a job.” Bratten v. SSI Servs., Inc., 185 F.3d 625, 632 (6th Cir. 1999) (emphasis added). Moreover, the duty of “reasonable accommodation” does not require an employer to “creat[e] a new job, mov[e] another employee, promot[e] the disabled employee, or violat[e] another employee’s rights under a collective bargaining agreement.” Cassidy v. Detroit Edison Co., 138 F.3d 629, 634 (6th Cir. 1998); see also Burns, 222 F.3d at 257 (“Employers are not required to create new jobs, displace existing employees from their positions, or violate other employees’ rights under a collective bargaining agreement or other non-discriminatory [company] policy.”). Steward argues that she could have been accommodated by the continued assistance of a fulltime helper. However, as a matter of law, the duty of reasonable accommodation did not require Chrysler to provide a full-time assistant to help Steward perform essential tasks of her job installing windshield frames. “Courts have continuously found that employers are not required to assign existing employees or hire new employees to perform [essential] functions or duties of a disabled employee’s job which the employee cannot perform by virtue of his disability.” Bratten, 185 F.3d at 632 (holding that “allowing co-workers to perform as much as 20% of the essential automotive mechanic duties” for disabled employee was not reasonable accommodation); see also Gilbert v. Frank, 949 F.2d 637, 644 (2d Cir. 1991) (having co-workers perform essential lifting tasks of disabled employee’s job not reasonable accommodation). Steward does not argue that her full-time helper was not performing any essential functions of her job; nor could a reasonable fact-finder conclude as much. - 19 - No. 08-1282 Steward v. New Chrysler Steward also argues that Chrysler could have accommodated her by giving her a clerical position or other position not involving physical labor. However, she has not come forward with evidence that she contemporaneously requested that Chrysler assign her to any specific position of this sort. See Manigan, 2010 WL 2776955, at  n.5 (“[A] plaintiff may not rely on accommodations that [s]he did not request.”). Moreover, the only two specific positions which she identifies in her appellate brief — a position involving “go[ing] out to different dealerships and show[ing] the vehicle” and one involving “answering phones and doing errands” — are both positions which Steward acknowledges are held by other employees; at the very least, she has adduced no affirmative evidence that these jobs were available at the time of her layoff or that they are available now. Appellant’s Br. at 29–30; see Cassidy, 138 F.3d at 634 (stating that employer is not required to “creat[e] a new job” or “mov[e] another employee”). Steward mentions a number of other employees whom she alleges Chrysler accommodated, but the bare fact that other employees were accommodated does not satisfy her evidentiary burden of pointing to a specific vacant position for which she was qualified, which she actually requested, and which was not provided to her. Chrysler, meanwhile, has submitted uncontested evidence that no such positions were available at the relevant time. See Aff. of Kief Clark, ROA 179, ¶ 8 (“From March 2005 to date, there has been and continues to be no job available within [Steward’s] seniority rights and work restrictions.”); see also ROA at 189.9 9 The closest thing the record contains to evidence pointing the other way is an email sent by human-resources employee Todd Taylor in August 2005, five months after Steward was placed on paid layoff. The email states that Chrysler “may have [had] a job [as of August 2005] that c[ould] accommodate [Steward’s] restrictions, but some new [physical requirements] might have just been - 20 - No. 08-1282 Steward v. New Chrysler Steward relies heavily on the deposition testimony of Moyna Moore, a former Chrysler human resources employee, who wrote an email in October 2004 stating that another position in which Steward could be accommodated was available at that time, and who testified in her deposition that she knew of other positions in which Steward could have been be accommodated as of November 11, 2004, when Moore left Chrysler’s employ. However, the availability of other jobs in October and November 2004 is irrelevant to our analysis. It is undisputed that at that time, instead of moving Steward to another position, Chrysler accommodated Steward in her existing position by means of an assistant. Steward does not argue that this choice was impermissible. Nor has she adduced any evidence that any particular position within her medical limitations was still available in March 2005, when Chrysler’s preferred accommodation became impracticable, or thereafter. Because Steward cannot make out a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA or PWDCRA, the district court did not err by granting Chrysler summary judgment with respect to those claims.
Steward alleges that her placement on paid layoff was in retaliation for her filing of a complaint with the EEOC the previous day. Both the ADA and the Michigan PWDCRA prohibit employers from retaliating against employees for engaging in activity protected under those statutes, added due to [a product] launch,” and that Taylor was looking into the issue. ROA at 316 (emphasis added). Because this email does not identify any specific position — or state that an appropriate position was definitely, or even probably, available — it cannot create a genuine issue of material fact. - 21 - No. 08-1282 Steward v. New Chrysler such as filing a complaint of discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a); Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.1602(a). To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Steward must demonstrate that: (1) she engaged in activity protected by [the ADA]; (2) the defendant knew of her exercise of her protected rights; (3) the defendant subsequently took an adverse employment action against the plaintiff or subjected the plaintiff to severe or pervasive retaliatory harassment; and (4) there was a causal connection between the plaintiff’s protected activity and the adverse employment action. Johnson, 344 F. App’x at 113 (quoting Barrett, 556 F.3d at 516) (alteration in Johnson). Steward’s retaliation claim fails because there is no evidence in the record that Chrysler “knew of her exercise of her protected rights” at the time it placed her on layoff. Chrysler adduced evidence that the EEOC did not send Chrysler notice of Steward’s complaint until March 21, 2005 — four days after Steward was placed on layoff. Kief Clark, the plant’s Quality and Industrial Engineering Manager, averred that he was the individual who made the decision to place Steward on layoff and that he was not aware of her EEOC complaint at the time he made his decision. See Aff. of Kief Clark, ROA 179, ¶¶ 6–7. Karen Humes, a plant human resources employee, averred that she was the individual who personally contacted Steward and informed her that she was being placed on layoff and that she, too, was unaware of Steward’s EEOC complaint at the time she did so. See Aff. of Karen Humes, ROA 192, ¶¶ 6, 9. Steward has not come forward with any evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, the district court did not err by granting Chrysler summary judgment with respect to Steward’s retaliation claim. - 22 - No. 08-1282 Steward v. New Chrysler
Finally, Steward argues that McKerley and/or Chrysler intentionally inflicted emotional distress on her by requiring her to work on a segregated assembly line. The Michigan Supreme Court “has never formally recognized IIED as a cause of action,” Moon v. Harrison Piping Supply, 465 F.3d 719, 728 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Roberts v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 374 N.W.2d 905, 913 (Mich. 1985)), although “[t]he Court of Appeals of Michigan has . . . consistently recognized the tort,” Mroz v. Lee, 5 F.3d 1016, 1018 (6th Cir. 1993) (collecting cases). Assuming such a cause of action exists under Michigan law, the traditional elements of such a claim are “(1) ‘extreme and outrageous’ conduct; (2) intent or recklessness; (3) causation; and (4) ‘severe emotional distress.’” Roberts, 374 N.W.2d at 908 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965)). Again, however, the facts that Steward has alleged and has supported through her deposition and those of her co-workers—as opposed to the labels that she has attached to them—simply do not support her claim that she was required to work on a segregated assembly line and therefore do not suffice to make out her IIED claim. See Mitchell, 964 F.2d at 583. “[M]ere allegation[s]” unsupported by “specific facts”—even alleged facts—do not have to be taken as true, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256, and accordingly, the district court did not err by granting Chrysler summary judgment with respect to Steward’s IIED claim. Accordingly, the district court did not err by granting Chrysler summary judgment with respect to Steward’s IIED claim. - 23 - No. 08-1282 Steward v. New Chrysler