Opinion ID: 1460562
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Marie Moss

Text: With respect to Moss, the issues before us are whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to UPS on Moss's disparate-treatment claim and whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to UPS on Moss's hostile-work-environment claim.

At the UPS center located in Akron, Ohio there are two shifts: pre-load (the morning shift) and re-load (the evening shift). In pre-load, packages are shipped to the Akron center, where they are unloaded and placed on a conveyor belt for sorting (Primary Sort). From the Primary Sort, the main conveyor breaks off into two parallel, smaller conveyor belts known as the Metro Sort and the East Sort. Moss has worked for UPS since 1976. From 1978 until 1993 (when the position was eliminated) Moss was a part-time, customer-counter clerk at the Akron center. Customer-counter clerks wait on customers and deal with the public. In 1993, Moss became a part-time, pre-load clerk, and worked at the East Sort, where she was the only black employee. As a pre-load clerk, Moss's duties included making address corrections, repairing damaged packages, repacking opened packages, retaping packages, and handling telephone inquiries. Moss was a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and was subject to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). In 1999 or 2000, Moss learned that UPS was going to build another center in Wadsworth, Ohio. The CBA contained a Change of Operations (COO) provision which under the circumstances of this case would allow employees from the Akron center to follow their work to Wadsworth. Joint Appendix (J.A.) at 619, 624 (CBA at 106; Supp. to CBA at 148). In other words, if a position in Akron was transferred to Wadsworth, the person working in that position in Akron had the right to take the position in Wadsworth. Further, the COO provision provided that when a new center (in this case Wadsworth) opened, any part-time support jobs that were created within thirty days of the opening must be offered, by seniority, to existing part-time support employees from the affected center (in this case Akron). Part-time job openings were filled using intent sheets. According to Moss, as a matter of practice, intent sheets were posted indefinitely until the position was filled and the employee actually began working in that position. Employees interested in the position signed the intent sheet, and the position went to the person with the greatest seniority. In late 2000, intent sheets were posted in Akron for various part-time positions for the Wadsworth facility. Moss saw a posting for her current position (pre-load clerk) even though she had not first been offered the opportunity to follow her work as required by the CBA. She did not see an intent sheet for a customer-counter-clerk position. When Moss inquired about the customer-counter-clerk position, the Metro-Center Manager, Brian Bachiari, told her that UPS had posted and taken down the intent sheet in August 2000, and that the customer-counter-clerk position had been filled. Moss signed the intent sheet for her second choice of pre-load clerk. Later, Moss learned that there were actually two open customer-counter-clerk positions available, but only one of those open positions had been posted at the Akron facility. The two positions were both given to white employees: one was given to a white male, Tom Gradwohl, from the Akron facility, the other to a white female, Margaret Ruddy (Ruddy), from the facility in Middleburg Heights, Ohio. Moss filed a grievance with respect to the manner in which the customer-counter-clerk intent sheet had been posted, alleging that UPS failed to follow policy and the CBA. A grievance hearing was held, resulting in a deadlock decision. At the hearing, Moss made clear that if she could not get a customer-counter-clerk position in Wadsworth, she wanted the pre-load-clerk position in Wadsworth. The next day, Human Resources Manager, Mike Mick (Mick), who had attended the grievance hearing, approached Moss with the Wadsworth pre-load-clerk intent sheet and said, You wanted me to take your name off the pre-load clerk position. J.A. at 586 (Moss Aff. at ¶ 34). Mick told her to cross out her name and initial it. Moss took Mick to mean that UPS would give her the customer-counter-clerk position if she first took her name off the pre-load-clerk-intent sheet, and so she complied with his request. When Moss asked for the intent sheet for the customer-counter-clerk position, Mick informed her that the customer-counter-clerk position had already been filled, and then he walked away.
The Wadsworth facility opened on February 2, 2001. On January 30, 2001, Moss's manager, Joseph Terlop (Terlop), approached Moss at the end of her shift and told her to report on Monday to the evening shift, because her current job had moved to Wadsworth. Moss did not want to work the evening shift, and so she informed Terlop that she was going to use her seniority to take a position in the Primary Sort to avoid the adverse shift transfer. On February 2, 2001, Moss reported to work in the morning and was administered a Primary-Sort qualifying test which she passed. Instead of placing her on the Primary-Sort, however, Terlop assigned her to unload trailers. Moss filed another grievance. The next day and for the next several days, Terlop assigned Moss to load package cars, a task involving heavy lifting. Eventually, Moss was assigned to the Primary Sort, where she remained for approximately two weeks. The work was too strenuous for Moss, and she requested reassignment to an open, small-sort position which was another position on the Primary-Sort for which she was qualified. The small-sort position involved smaller and lighter packages. Terlop refused. Instead, Terlop assigned Moss to the boxline charger positiona position for which she was not qualified, involving very heavy lifting. Despite the fact that Moss does not believe that she passed the qualifying test (she was never shown the results, even after asking for them), Terlop kept her in the boxline charger position. Moss injured her groin on the job and was unable to work for six months. Moss alleges that Terlop constantly criticized Moss regarding matters for which he did not criticize her white co-workers. According to Moss, Terlop criticized her for eating during work, for leaving her work station to get a cup of coffee, for using the bathroom at the end of her break, and for the size of her earrings. Moss asserts that although white employees engaged in similar conduct, she never witnessed Terlop criticize those employees. Further, Terlop assigned Moss to tasks outside of her job description; for example, one time Terlop made Moss take company supplies, like toilet paper, over to the supply trailer. Terlop also falsely accused Moss of taking boxes while on company time. Moss also alleges that while she was on leave, someone cut the lock on her desk, removed the supplies, and placed them in a box, although a white co-worker was able to store his supplies in a locked desk drawer. One day, as Moss was on her way out at the end of her shift, another co-worker asked for her assistance. While Moss was waiting for the co-worker, Moss began eating one of the doughnuts that someone had brought in for the employees. Terlop went up to Moss and, in front of other employees, accused her of standing around and eating instead of working. Another incident between Moss and Terlop centered around the route Moss took to get to her work area. According to Moss, Terlop criticized her for the route she took, but did not chastize her white co-workers who took the same route. Terlop told Moss she was not getting to her work area on time, criticized the route she took, and had her timed to record how long it took her to get to her work station. Moss filed grievances claiming UPS's instructions about the route Moss should take to walk to her work area constituted harassment, and alleging discrimination based on Terlop disciplining her for failing to report to her work area on time.
Moss filed suit against UPS, alleging race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and OHIO REV.CODE §§ 4112.02(A) and 4112.99. UPS filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court granted UPS's motion with respect to all of Moss's claims except for Moss's claim of disparate-treatment based on UPS's failure to give her the opportunity to follow her work as a preload clerk to the Wadsworth facility. [2] Moss then filed a motion to reconsider which the district court denied. On appeal, Moss argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on her other disparate-treatment theories and on her hostile-work-environment claim.
When, as is the case here, a plaintiff presents only indirect evidence of disparate treatment based on race, we analyze the claim under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting approach. See Johnson v. Kroger Co., 319 F.3d 858, 865-66 (6th Cir.2003). `On a motion for summary judgment, a district court considers whether there is sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute at each stage of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry.' Macy v. Hopkins County Sch. Bd. of Educ., 484 F.3d 357, 364 (6th Cir.2007) (quoting Cline v. Catholic Diocese of Toledo, 206 F.3d 651, 661 (6th Cir.2000)). First, the plaintiff must make a prima facie case of racial discrimination. Johnson, 319 F.3d at 866. There are many context-dependent ways by which plaintiffs may establish a prima facie case. Macy, 484 F.3d at 365 (emphasis removed). The key question is always whether, under the particular facts and context of the case at hand, the plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence that he or she suffered an adverse employment action under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. Id. In this case, the parties all use the following construct for establishing whether or not Moss made a prima facie case: the plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he [or she] was a member of a protected class; (2) that he [or she] suffered an adverse employment action; (3) that he [or she] was qualified for the position; and (4) that a person outside the protected class was treated more favorably than him [or her]. Braithwaite v. Timken Co., 258 F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir.2001). The fourth prong requires that the plaintiff show that the person treated more favorably was similarly situated to the plaintiff in all relevant respects. Clayton v. Meijer, Inc., 281 F.3d 605, 610-11 (6th Cir.2002). Second, if the plaintiff makes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employment decision. Braithwaite, 258 F.3d at 493 (internal quotation marks omitted). To meet this burden, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for its decision. Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 255, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). An articulation not admitted into evidence will not suffice. Thus, the defendant cannot meet its burden merely through an answer to the complaint or by argument of counsel. Id. at 256 n. 9, 101 S.Ct. 1089. Finally, if the defendant meets its burden of articulation, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the reason put forth by the defendant is pretextual, which can be done `by showing that the proffered reason (1) has no basis in fact, (2) did not actually motivate the defendant's challenged conduct, or (3) was insufficient to warrant the challenged conduct.' Johnson, 319 F.3d at 866 (quoting Dews v. A.B. Dick Co., 231 F.3d 1016, 1021 (6th Cir.2000)). Moss claims that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to UPS on her disparate-treatment claim. In support of her position, Moss argues that she raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether UPS discriminated against her by not giving her one of the two customer-counter-clerk positions at the Wadsworth facility. [3] UPS posted an intent sheet in Akron for only one of the customer-counter-clerk positions (Akron position), and did not post an intent sheet in Akron for the other customer-counter-clerk position which was eventually filled by a UPS employee from the Middleburg Heights facility (Middleburg Heights position). We examine each position separately below.
The district court found that Moss had made her prima facie case with respect to the Akron position. It further found that UPS had put forth a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for denying her the positionas Moss has conceded, she did not sign the intent sheet that was posted in August 2000. Moss asserted that UPS's reason was pretextual as was evidenced by the fact that the intent sheet was posted for only one week, and was posted six months before the position would be available, whereas by common practice, intent sheets were posted until about one or two weeks before a given position opened. The district court rejected Moss's pretext argument, reasoning that UPS's failure to follow its usual posting procedure did not, in itself, create a material issue of fact from which a jury could infer that UPS was motivated by race in taking down the intent sheet. The district court reasoned that because Moss did not present any evidence showing that UPS knew she was interested in the customer-counter-clerk position until after the intent sheet had been posted and the position filled, a jury could not infer that UPS took down the intent sheet to work a harm against Moss. We agree. As a matter of common sense, the only way that UPS's decision to take down the intent sheet could be evidence of racial discrimination is if UPS had reason to know that Moss was actually interested in the customer-counter-clerk position. Moss has not cited anything in the record indicating that UPS was on notice that Moss was interested in the position until well after the intent sheet had been posted and the position had been filled. Because Moss's theory of pretext is based solely on unsupported speculation that somehow UPS knew she wanted the customer-counter-clerk position, we conclude that the district court was correct in finding that Moss failed to establish evidence of pretext. Accordingly, we affirm the district court insofar as it granted summary judgment to UPS on Moss's disparate-treatment claim based on the Akron position.

In its order denying Moss's motion to reconsider, the district court determined that Moss could not make a prima facie case with respect to the Middleburg Heights position because Moss and Ruddy were seeking two different positions. According to the district court, the two customer-counter-clerk positions in Wadsworth were distinct, in that one was reserved for an Akron employee and one was reserved for a Middleburg Heights employee. Because Moss was an Akron employee, the district court explained, she was seeking only the Akron position. We interpret the district court's finding to mean that it did not consider Moss and Ruddy as similarly situated. The district court provided no citation to the record in support of its factual findings. We have found nothing in the record which establishes that the Middleburg Heights position was reserved for an employee from the Middleburg Heights facility. UPS cites Mike Mick's (Mick) Declaration and the intent sheet which was posted in Akron as evidence that the position filled by Ruddy was open only to Middleburg Heights employees. But those documents do not establish that this was the case. The Mick Declaration states that UPS filled one position out of the Middleburg Heights hub and the other from the Akron facility. J.A. at 125 (Mick Decl. at ¶ 13). This explains only who eventually received these positions, but it does not establish that one of the positions was reserved for a Middleburg Heights employee. [4] The intent sheet posted in Akron does have Akron-Wadsworth written on the top, but that does nothing to establish that only one customer-counter-clerk position was reserved for an Akron employee. J.A. at 745. Based on the lack of evidence indicating that Moss was not eligible for both customer-counter-clerk positions at Wadsworth, the district court erred in determining that Moss was not similarly situated to Ruddy. As the parties concede that the other three elements of Moss's prima facie case are met, the burden shifts to UPS.
UPS has not given any reason for giving the position to Ruddy (who had less seniority than Moss) other than its allegation that the position was not available to Akron employees. This could constitute a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not giving the position to Moss, if it was supported by admissible evidence. See Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255-56, 101 S.Ct. 1089. As explained above, UPS's citations to the record do not clearly set forth, through . . . admissible evidence, the reasons why Moss was ineligible for the Middleburg Heights position. The Mick Declaration merely states what did happen; the Akron intent sheet only establishes that UPS posted an intent sheet in Akron. UPS has not cited any affidavits or other evidence that states that UPS intended to fill one customer-counter-clerk position from the Akron facility and one from the Middleburg Heights facility. Because UPS has failed to meet its burden of articulation as set forth in Burdine, we reverse the judgment of the district court with respect to Moss's disparate-treatment claim based on the Middleburg Heights position.
Moss also claims that the district court erred in granting UPS summary judgment on her hostile-work-environment claim. The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting approach also applies to hostile-work-environment claims. In this case, the parties agree that Moss's prima facie case is established if she shows that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was subjected to unwelcomed racial harassment; (3) the harassment was race based; (4) the harassment unreasonably interfered with her work performance by creating an environment that was intimidating, hostile, or offensive; and (5) employer liability. Hafford v. Seidner, 183 F.3d 506, 512 (6th Cir.1999). The district court determined that Moss failed to establish a prima facie case for hostile-work environment because she did not demonstrate that the harassment she endured was based on race and she did not show that the harassment unreasonably interfered with her performance. In other words, she did not meet the third and fourth prongs of her prima facie case. We examine each of these prongs in turn.
Moss does not allege that any racially derogatory comments were made in the workplace; her claim is based on the theory that the facially neutral conduct of her supervisor towards her was, in fact, based on her race. Conduct that is not explicitly race-based may be illegally race-based and properly considered in a hostile-work-environment analysis when it can be shown that but for the employee's race, she would not have been the object of harassment. Farmer v. Cleveland Pub. Power, 295 F.3d 593, 605 (6th Cir.2002), abrogated on other grounds by White v. Columbus Metro. Housing Auth., 429 F.3d 232, 240-41 (6th Cir.2005). Moss claims that Terlop singled her out and castigated her for engaging in behaviors in which her white counterparts engaged with impunity. In support of her argument that she was harassed based on her race, Moss supplied her own affidavit as well as affidavits from two coworkers. According to the district court, these affidavits were speculat[ive] and lack[ed] sufficient detail, and failed to specify whether Terlop knew about the white employees' conduct. J.A. at 947-48 (Op. at 12-13). Therefore, the district court determined that the affidavits did not establish that the harassment was based on race. The affidavits assert that Moss was criticized for conduct for which her white co-workers were not. Moss was criticized for the doughnut incident, for the route she took to get to her work station, for leaving her work station to get a cup of coffee, for using the bathroom at the end of her break, and for the size of her earrings. These affidavits set forth specific conduct for which Moss was berated and for which her white co-workers were not; thus, the district court erred in finding that these affidavits did not provide sufficient detail. We also reject the district court's rejection of the affidavits as speculat[ive]. J.A. at 947 (Op. at 12). A fair reading of at least one of the affidavits establishes that Terlop did witness white employees engaging in similar conduct for which he failed to discipline them. For example, in the affidavit of Moss's co-worker, Sue Starkey, Starkey states that Terlop yelled at Moss for the way she walked to her work station, yet Terlop never mentioned anything to me about how I walked to or from my work area, even though Starkey often took the same route. J.A. at 603 (Starkey Aff. at ¶ 15). The Starkey Affidavit also states that sometime after the doughnut incident, a white coworker[] took an entire plate of food to eat while she was still on the clock, [and] Terlop said nothing. J.A. at 604 (Starkey Aff. at ¶ 18). The obvious and fair inference from these statements is that Terlop was in a position from which he could witness these events. Given that Moss was the only black employee in her work area and that she alleges that Terlop disciplined her for things for which he did not discipline her coworkers, Moss has created an inference, sufficient to survive summary judgment, that race was the motivating reason behind Terlop's behavior. Accordingly, the district court erred in finding otherwise.
In order to satisfy the fourth prong of the prima facie case, the plaintiff must present evidence showing that under the totality of the circumstances the harassment was `sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment.' Williams v. Gen. Motors Corp., 187 F.3d 553, 560, 562 (6th Cir.1999) (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys. Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993)). The severe or pervasive requirement has both an objective and a subjective component. Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22, 114 S.Ct. 367. It requires the court to examine, under the totality of the circumstances, `the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it [was] physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interfere[d] with an employee's performance.' Randolph v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs., 453 F.3d 724, 733 (6th Cir.2006) (alterations in original) (quoting Harris, 510 U.S. at 23, 114 S.Ct. 367). Although the question of [w]hether conduct is severe or pervasive is `quintessentially a question of fact,' Jordan v. City of Cleveland, 464 F.3d 584, 597 (6th Cir.2006) (quoting O'Shea v. Yellow Tech. Servs., Inc., 185 F.3d 1093, 1098 (10th Cir.1999)), we have earlier affirmed grants of summary judgment, determining that as a matter of law, the conduct complained of was not sufficiently severe or pervasive. See, e.g., Smith v. Leggett Wire Co., 220 F.3d 752, 760-61 (6th Cir.2000); Burnett v. Tyco Corp., 203 F.3d 980, 984-85 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 928, 121 S.Ct. 307, 148 L.Ed.2d 246 (2000). The district court determined that the harassment complained of by Moss did not rise to the level of severity or pervasiveness that would unreasonably interfere with her ability to work. Recounting the incidents raised in the affidavits, totaling fifteen specific incidents spanning a two-year period, the district court found that these incidents were isolated and were not pervasive. With respect to the severity of the incidents, the district court found the failure to remove her from the boxline charger position, the doughnut incident, and timing her route to her work station were the most egregious. Examining other cases in our circuit, the district court determined that [c]ases of far more severe humiliation and ridicule have been held not to violate Title VII. J.A. at 949 (Op. at 14). We agree. For the most part, the incidents complained of amounted to mere offensive utterances, which are not actionable under Title VII. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 21, 114 S.Ct. 367. Compare Jordan, 464 F.3d at 598 (conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive when for over ten years plaintiff was exposed to racial slurs, demeaning jokes, and inflammatory graffiti, experienced isolation and segregation and disparate discipline and additional duties.) with Burnett, 203 F.3d at 984-85 (three sexually offensive remarks made by the plaintiff's supervisor at the beginning and end of a six-month period did not constitute pervasive discriminatory conduct). We note that the failure to remove Moss from the boxline charger position did result in her groin injury which kept her out of work for six months. This is a serious matter. However, this incident, standing either alone or in conjunction with the alleged offensive utterances, does not constitute a hostile work environment. The Supreme Court recently explained that [a] hostile work environment . . . typically comprises a succession of harassing acts, each of which `may not be actionable on its own.' In addition, a hostile[-]work[-]environment claim `cannot be said to occur on any particular day.' Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2162, 2175, 167 L.Ed.2d 982 (2007) (quoting Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 115-16, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002)). In a hostile-work-environment claim, the actionable wrong is the environment, not the individual acts that, taken together, create the environment. Id. In the case at bar, Terlop's refusal to remove Moss from the boxline charger position does not constitute the type of on-going harassment which would create a hostile work environment. Moss requested that she be removed from the position, and Terlop refused to do so. This is more akin to a discrete act, which is decidedly not actionable as a hostile-work-environment claim. See id. While we do not wish to diminish the gravity of the situation, this incident does not, as a matter of law, meet the severe or pervasive requirement for a hostile-work-environment claim. [5] Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to UPS on Moss's hostile-work-environment claim.