United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF NO. 50)
JAMES
R. SWEENEY II, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Defendant
IAC Greencastle, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 50) is fully briefed and ripe for decision.
For the following reasons, the Court concludes that the
motion should be granted in part and denied in
part.
I.
Background
Plaintiff
Jeffrey Renfroe alleges claims against Defendant IAC
Greencastle, LLC (“Defendant” or
“IAC”), for disparate treatment and a hostile
work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
(“Title VII”). (ECF No. 26 ¶ 25.)
Specifically, Renfroe alleges that IAC (1) failed to stop
Renfroe's co-workers from subjecting him to racially
discriminatory and harassing comments; and (2) failed to
enforce its workplace dress code, thus allowing Renfroe's
co-workers to wear clothing depicting the Confederate flag.
Renfroe alleges that this combination of harassing comments
and Confederate flag clothing throughout his 3.5-year long
employment at IAC created a hostile work environment.
(ECF No. 26 ¶ 19-21.) Renfroe also seeks
punitive damages because IAC failed to remedy the
discriminatory comments and dress code violations despite
Renfroe's repeated reports. (ECF No. 26 at 4.)
The following facts are presented in a light most favorable
to Renfroe, the non-moving party.
A.
IAC Employees Wear Clothing Depicting the Confederate
Flag
Renfroe
worked as a continuous improvement specialist for IAC's
automobile parts manufacturing plant from December 2013 until
July 2017. (ECF No. 51-1 at 21; ECF No. 51-1 at
4-5.) Renfroe is African-American, and alleges that
beginning in 2014, he experienced a hostile work environment
in which his white co-workers frequently wore clothing and
accessories displaying the Confederate flag and made racially
degrading comments to him. (See ECF No. 67-1;
ECF No. 51-1 at 83, 279:14-18.) Paula Miller was the
Human Resource (“HR”) Manager at IAC until
October 16, 2014. (See ECF No. 69-1 at 36.) Senior
HR Generalist Kim Vickrey was in charge of the HR Department
from October 17, 2014 to January 19, 2015, when Jeri King was
hired. (See ECF No. 69-1 at 36-37.) Jeri King was
the HR Manager from January 20, 2015 to April 22, 2015.
(See ECF No. 69-1 at 38-39.) Vickrey was again in
charge of the HR Department from April 23, 2015 to July 4,
2016, providing coverage until Rachel Pearson was hired.
(See ECF No. 69-1 at 37-39.) Rachel Pearson was the
HR Manager at IAC from July 5, 2016 until Renfroe's
employment ended on July 14, 2017. (See ECF No. 69-1 at
39.) Although Vickrey did not occupy the HR Manager role
throughout Renfroe's entire period of employment, Renfroe
testifies that Vickrey was a constant HR figure at IAC who
temporarily filled the HR Manager role anytime it became
vacant during the course of Renfroe's employment.
(See ECF No. 69-1 at 36-39.)
IAC had
an “anti-harassment” policy in place the whole
time Renfroe was employed. (ECF No. 69-1 at 47,
81:9-15.) This policy directs employees to report incidents
of harassment to the HR Manager or to the HR department
generally. (ECF No. 69-1 at 47, 81:16-25.) In around
February 2015 or March 2015, Renfroe lodged several
complaints with Jeri King about employees wearing the
Confederate flag. (See ECF No. 69-3 at 5.) Renfroe
testified that during King's January 20, 2015 to April
22, 2015 term as HR Manager, he could “walk through the
plant and find somebody wearing a Confederate flag on almost
a daily basis.” (ECF No. 51-1 at 83.) Renfroe
says that when his complaints to King were futile, he started
taking pictures of these employees. (See ECF No. 69-3 at
5-6, 8, 11.) Renfroe took ten photos of co-workers
wearing clothing depicting the Confederate flag, such photos
being taken in September 2015, October 2015, December 2015,
February 2016, March 2016, and August 2016. These photos show
several white employees wearing Confederate flag shirts,
hats, and bandanas. (See ECF No. 67-1.) In addition
to the Confederate flag, some of these clothes displayed the
following messages: (1) “[t]he flag may fade, but the
glory never will” (ECF No. 67-1 at 25), and
(2) “[c]areful with that flag son. Obamacare
doesn't cover an a** whippin (sic).” (ECF No.
67-1 at 27.) In September 2015, Renfroe also
photographed an employee's vehicle in the IAC parking lot
that displayed a Confederate flag license plate. (ECF No.
67-1 at 2-3.)
On
November 28, 2016, Renfroe emailed Pearson a photograph of a
co-worker wearing a Confederate flag shirt. (ECF No. 51-2
at 58.) Pearson testified that aside from this photo,
she had not seen employees wearing Confederate flag clothing,
even though she was “on the floor on a regular
basis” policing for employees' general compliance
with IAC's dress code and other policies. (ECF No.
51-3 at 14, 44:6-10; ECF No. 51-3 at 14,
44:12-22.) Pearson investigated Renfroe's complaint and
disciplined the culpable employee by removing the employee
from her job post, requiring her to change into a
work-appropriate shirt, and assessing the employee a written
discipline referral. (ECF No. 51-4 at 3-4.) In
contrast to Pearson's testimony that she had never seen
employees wearing Confederate flag attire in her
“regular” rounds of the plant floor, a former
plant supervisor, Larry Ashley, testified that he
“routinely” saw such inappropriate dress on the
plant floor during the last year of his employment at IAC,
which ended in March 2017. (ECF No. 67-4 at 2.)
Following
this November 2016 incident, IAC implemented respectful
workplace training and required all employees to attend.
(ECF No. 51-3 at 12.) Pearson also asked Renfroe to
report any future instances of inappropriate clothing so that
Pearson could take remedial action. (ECF No. 51-3 at
14, 44:8-12.) Pearson then followed-up with the HR
department, Renfroe's supervisors, and other plant staff
to learn whether anyone else had seen employees wearing
clothes displaying the Confederate flag at work, and no one
had. (ECF No. 51-3 at 14.) In addition, the HR
department emailed IAC's dress code to employees in May
2015, June 2016, and June 2017 to remind employees of
appropriate workplace attire. (ECF No. 51-4 at 5-7.)
The IAC dress code prohibited employees from wearing
“clothing with offensive words, terms, logos, pictures,
cartoons or slogans” and advised employees that
“[o]ther inappropriate wear [would] be addressed on a
case-by-case basis.” (ECF No. 67-3 at 1-3).
B.
Renfroe is Subjected to Racially Insensitive Comments by
Co-Workers
In
addition to Renfroe's co-workers' wearing Confederate
flag clothing, they allegedly subjected Renfroe to racially
discriminatory comments on a handful of occasions. During a
December 2014 safety team meeting, one of Renfroe's white
co-workers used a racial slur in front of Renfroe, stating
that the safety team could “[n****r]-rig” a
repair, describing a poor method of fixing a maintenance
issue. (ECF No. 68 at 3; ECF No. 51-1 at
27.) Renfroe left this meeting and went to IAC's HR
Department to report this incident, but no one from HR was
available. (ECF No. 51-1 at 29.) Later that day, the
offending employee jokingly asked Renfroe if he had
“hear[d] what [the offending employee] said”
earlier. (ECF No. 51-1 at 28, 118:16-19.) Renfroe
later reported this incident to Vickrey, who instructed the
offending employee to apologize to Renfroe. (ECF No. 51-1
at 31.)
In
September 2015, an IAC employee referred to Renfroe as the
“rich monkey who drives the Mercedes.” (ECF
No. 69-2 at 164; ECF No. 67-1 at 1.) Renfroe
did not report this incident to IAC's HR department
because Renfroe did not like the way IAC handled his
discrimination complaints in the past. (ECF No. 51-1 at
35, 164:12-25.) In around November or December 2015,
another of Renfroe's white co-workers told Renfroe that
“black lives don't matter . . . in
Greencastle.” (ECF No. 51-1 at 39.) Renfroe
attempted to verbally report this comment to King, but she
acted like she was in too much of a hurry to listen to this
complaint. (ECF No. 51-1 at 39.) In addition,
another of Renfroe's co-workers told Renfroe that
“[w]e're about to have our first black president .
. . . [President Barack Obama] may not make it because he
might get hung . . .”[1] (ECF No. 51-1 at 36.)
That same employee also asked Renfroe if black people are
required to complete more engineering schooling than white
people, because “you guys are . . . dumber than every
other race.” (ECF No. 51-1 at 36.)
In
December 2016, some of Renfroe's co-workers took to a
union-employee Facebook group to discuss Renfroe's
reports of racial discrimination; namely, that his co-workers
had been wearing Confederate flag clothing. (ECF No. 67-1
at 29-32.) One employee in this group posted a warning
to the other members of the group, advising “anyone who
speaks with Jeff Renfroe . . . to be cautious. He has filed
multiple complaints against [IAC employees] in the past few
months.” (ECF No. 51-2 at 60-63.) Another
union-employee posted a comment in the Facebook group that
“[Renfroe is] causing trouble[, ] but his job won't
be downsized [be]cause he's gonna play the race card[.] .
. . [H]e's in for a fight because he picked on the wrong
one this time.” (ECF No. 67-1 at 31.) Renfroe
was not a member of this Facebook group and only learned of
the messages because several IAC employees showed him the
posts. (ECF No. 51-1 at 72.) Renfroe took
screenshots of these Facebook posts and showed them to
Pearson. (ECF No. 51-3 at 26-27.) Pearson then
shared images of these posts with IAC's plant manager and
HR director. The next day, Pearson held a meeting with union
committee members to discuss the inappropriate nature of the
Facebook posts. (ECF No. 51-3 at 30, 68:3-15.)
Sometime
prior to April 22, 2016, another of Renfroe's white
co-workers stated that it takes black people longer to
complete educational degrees than white people because
“black people are too busy killing each other.”
(ECF No. 51-1 at 44.) On November 21, 2016, as
Renfroe was on his way to an IAC pot luck lunch, he
encountered several IAC employees who were bringing food to
the luncheon. Renfroe asked these employees what food they
were carrying, and one white employee laughed and responded,
“this ain't no chicken, greens and
watermelon.” (ECF No. 51-1 at 68.) Renfroe
sent an email report of this incident to Pearson. (ECF
No. 51-2 at 51.) Pearson was out of the office at the
time of Renfroe's email, but Kim Vickrey started the
initial investigation of Renfroe's complaint while
Pearson was away. (ECF No. 51-3 at 11.) Upon
Pearson's return, she continued Vickrey's
investigation and disciplined the employee who made the
comment, assessing the employee a two-day suspension and
issuing the employee a formal referral to the Employee
Assistance program for “sensitivity and harassment
law” training. (ECF No. 51-3 at 12; ECF
No. 51-4 at 1-3.)
Renfroe
filed an EEOC Charge of Discrimination on February 6, 2017,
alleging against IAC race discrimination, harassment, and a
hostile work environment due to IAC's failure to stop the
harassing comments and acts of Renfroe's co-workers.
(ECF No. 51-2.) Renfroe testified that as a result
of his co-workers' harassment, he “experienced
severe emotional distress and stress, ” “[o]ften
times . . . dreaded going to work because [he] expected the
worst every workday, ” and was “paranoid of when
the next harassing incident would occur.” (ECF No.
67-5 at 1.) Renfroe also alleged in his EEOC Charge that
IAC subjected him to disparate treatment. (ECF No.
51-2.) In July 2017, Renfroe resigned from IAC. (ECF
No. 51-1 at 4-5.)
II.
Legal Standard
A
motion for summary judgment asks the Court to find that a
trial is unnecessary because there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and, instead, the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). Rule 56 makes clear that whether a party asserts that
a fact is undisputed or genuinely disputed, the party must
support the asserted fact by citing to particular parts of
the record, including depositions, documents, or affidavits.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A). Affidavits or declarations must be
made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be
admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant is
competent to testify on matters stated. Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c)(4). Failure to properly support a fact in opposition to
a movant's factual assertion can result in the Court
considering the movant's fact undisputed, and potentially
showing the movant is entitled to the grant of summary
judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e).
In
deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court need only
consider disputed facts that are material to the decision. A
disputed fact is material if it might affect the outcome of
the suit under the governing law. Hampton v. Ford Motor
Co., 561 F.3d 709, 713 (7th Cir. 2009). On summary
judgment, a party must show the Court what evidence it has
that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of
the events. Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., 325 F.3d
892, 901 (7th Cir. 2003). The moving party is entitled to
summary judgment if no reasonable factfinder could return a
verdict for the non-moving party. Nelson v. Miller,
570 F.3d 868, 875 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court views the record
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws
all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.
Darst v. Interstate Brands Corp., 512 F.3d 903, 907
(7th Cir. 2008). It cannot weigh evidence or make credibility
determinations on summary judgment because those tasks are
...