Mills v. Cellco Partnership — 376 F. Supp. 3d 1228 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama · 2019

basis: triable; count: race-discrimination claim that the Trussville manager scheduled plaintiff and other African American employees for a disproportionate share of weekend closing shifts; subject: count=race-discrimination claim that the Trussville manager scheduled plaintiff and other African American employees for a disproportionate share of weekend closing shifts

To qualify as adverse employment action, "the employer's action must impact the terms, conditions, or privileges of the plaintiff's job in a real and demonstrable way."

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

By contrast, Ms. Mills alleges that her manager consistently scheduled her for weekend closing shifts, exhibiting a pattern of discrimination against her and other African American employees.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Verizon has not pointed to anything in the record conclusively contradicting Ms. Mills's allegations that her manager favored white employees with preferable schedules.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Though Ms. Mills's allegedly unfavorable schedule did not reduce her compensation

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

So the court concludes that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Ms. Mills suffered adverse employment action by having to work more weekend closing shifts than her coworkers.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

basis: no-evidence

"Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment-an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive-is beyond Title VII's purview."

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 1 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Ms. Mills alleges her manager in Trussville, Kerry Gould, subjected her to daily racial remarks and negative treatment throughout 2014.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

her coworkers at the relevant times echo the allegation that Mr. Gould frequently made racially offensive comments.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

But Ms. Mills's testified that both of Mr. Gould's comments about the KKK occurred during a single conversation, very early in her time working under his management.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Ms. Mills also specifically testified that she did not feel physically threatened at the time Mr. Gould made these comments but rather "felt hurt [she] was working with a racist."

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

So the court concludes that a jury could not reasonably find that Mr. Gould's repeated racial statements, including approving references to the KKK, were severe and pervasive enough to create hostile work environment under Title VII.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

basis: conceded

Margo Mills has worked in retail sales for Defendant Verizon Wireless since November 2012.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

basis: conceded

Ms. Mills made her first formal complaint to Verizon's Human Resources department on December 18, 2014, when she emailed her complaints about Mr. Gould's alleged racial comments and discriminatory treatment.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Verizon does not dispute that Ms. Mills has engaged in activity protected under Title VII.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

basis: conceded

Margo Mills, an African American female, has worked at Verizon in retail sales since November 2012 and continues to work for Verizon.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

basis: triable; count: race-discrimination claim that the Trussville manager scheduled plaintiff and other African American employees for a disproportionate share of weekend closing shifts; subject: count=race-discrimination claim that the Trussville manager scheduled plaintiff and other African American employees for a disproportionate share of weekend closing shifts

As the Eleventh Circuit recently clarified, to be a valid comparator, an employee must be similarly situated "in all material respects" but need not be "nearly identical" to the plaintiff.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

The white and African American employees all had the same rank and position and were all under the jurisdiction of the same supervisor who determined the schedules.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

while Ms. Mills does not allege that her manager made racial comments related to scheduling

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 1; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

But Verizon confusingly never proffers any reason for Ms. Mills to rebut.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Verizon also points out that when Ms. Mills complained to her manager about the unfair schedules, he placed her in charge of scheduling for some period of time no shorter than a month.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

the court concludes that Ms. Mills has created an inference of discriminatory intent as to her unfair scheduling claim.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

basis: no-evidence

Ms. Mills alleges she complained to Mr. Gould several times throughout 2014 that he unfairly scheduled her and other black employees for a disproportionate number of undesirable weekend closing shifts.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

While Ms. Mills indicated that African Americans, herself included, received more undesirable shifts than white employees, she never alleged or testified that she received more undesirable shifts than employees who had never complained about racial discrimination.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 1; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

In fact, Mr. Gould initially responded to her scheduling complaints by placing her in charge of scheduling for the store.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

The language of the coachings indicates that specific interactions with customers prompted the alleged threats of discipline, rather than Ms. Mills's engaging in protected activity.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

But Ms. Mills's claim that she suffered this adverse employment action because she complained to Mr. Gould must fail; she presented no evidence, direct or circumstantial, showing a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)