Sarvak v. Developers Diversified Realty Corporation et al, No. 1:2010cv00942 - Document 44 (S.D. Ohio 2012)
Court Description: ORDER granting 23 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 26 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff shall bear the costs of this action. This case is Dismissed and Terminated on the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Herman J. Weber on 9/13/12. (do1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sarvak v. Developers Diversified Realty Corporation et al Doc. 44 U N I T ED ST AT ES DI ST RI CT COU RT SOU T H ERN DI ST RI CT OF OH I O WEST ERN DI V I SI ON CRY ST AL SARV AK , Pla int iff v. Ca se N o. 1 :1 0 -c v-9 4 2 -H J W DDR CORP., F/K /A DEV ELOPERS DI V ERSI FI ED REALT Y CORP., e t a l, De fe nda nt s ORDER T his m a t t e r is be fore t he Court upon t he “M ot ion for Sum m a ry J udgm e nt ” (doc . no. 2 3 ) by de fe nda nt De ve lope rs Dive rsifie d Re a lt y Corpora t ion (“DDR”). Also pe nding is t he joint “M ot ion for Sum m a ry J udgm e nt ” (doc . no. 2 6 ) by de fe nda nt U rba n Re t a il Prope rt ie s, LLC (“U rba n”) a nd de fe nda nt Cove nt ry Re a l Est a t e Advisors, LLC (“Cove nt ry”). Cryst a l Sa rva k (“pla int iff”) ha s file d a single brie f in opposit ion (doc . no. 3 0 ), a nd de fe nda nt s ha ve re plie d (doc . nos. 3 7 , 3 8 ). T he de fe nda nt s ha ve file d t w o se t s of propose d findings of fa c t a nd c onc lusions of la w , w hic h pla int iff ha s highlight e d a s t rue , fa lse , or irre le va nt (doc . nos. 3 1 , 3 2 ). H a ving c onside re d t he re c ord, inc luding t he ple a dings, brie fs, e x hibit s, propose d findings, a nd a pplic a ble a ut horit y, t he Court w ill gra nt bot h m ot ions for t he follow ing re a sons: 1 Dockets.Justia.com I . Ba c k ground T he re le va nt fa c t s a re la rge ly undisput e d. T o t he e x t e nt t he pa rt ie s disa gre e a s t o t he c ha ra c t e riza t ion of c e rt a in fa c t s or t he ir le ga l signific a nc e , suc h disput e s w ill be not e d he re in. De fe nda nt Cove nt ry ow ns t he T ri-Count y M a ll loc a t e d in Cinc inna t i, Ohio, a nd de fe nda nt DDR m a na ge d t his prope rt y unt il De c e m be r 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 . During t he t im e t ha t DDR m a na ge d t he m a ll, M ic ha e l Lyons w a s Ge ne ra l M a na ge r for DDR a t t his loc a t ion. I n J une of 2 0 0 7 , he hire d Cryst a l Sa rva k (a ge 4 4 ) for t he full-t im e prope rt y a c c ount a nt posit ion a t t he m a ll. I n t his posit ion, Sa rva k a ssist e d or ot he rw ise support e d va rious func t ions of t he c e nt ra l a c c ount ing de pa rt m e nt of DDR’s c orpora t e offic e (doc . no. 2 5 -7 a t 2 0 -2 1 , list ing c e nt ra l offic e a c c ount ing func t ions a nd onsit e support func t ions). By a ll a c c ount s, pla int iff w a s a good e m ploye e . Lyons ga ve he r fa vora ble pe rform a nc e re vie w s a nd a t le a st one ra ise . During he r e m ploym e nt w it h DDR, pla int iff m a de se ve ra l re que st s for sc he dule c ha nge s a nd le a ve , a ll of w hic h Lyons gra nt e d (doc . no. 3 1 a t ¶ ¶ 4 -5 ). On Se pt e m be r 2 , 2 0 0 9 , Lyons se nt a group e m a il t o DDR e m ploye e s, inc luding Sa rva k , se t t ing fort h t he 2 c om pa ny’s polic ie s on w ork sc he dule s a s provide d in t he Em ploye e H a ndbook (doc . no. 2 5 -7 , Lyon De p., Ex . J ). T he ne x t da y, Sa rva k re que st e d t o t a k e a la t e r lunc h hour a nd t o re duc e he r hours t o pa rt -t im e , “pe rha ps 3 2 .5 t o 3 5 hours pe r w e e k ” (I d., Ex . J , CS 5 1 8 ). Lyons indic a t e s t ha t a ft e r c he c k ing w it h his ow n supe rvisor, he de nie d t he re que st for pa rt -t im e hours be c a use “t he posit ion re quire d full-t im e dut ie s” (I d., Lyons De p. a t 2 2 ). H e indic a t e s he t old Sa rva k t ha t DDR “w ould he lp he r w it h fle x t im e ” but t ha t t he posit ion ha d t o re m a in full t im e . (I d.) Pla int iff a lle ge s t ha t she got no re sponse but “m a de a rra nge m e nt s so t ha t she w ould not ne e d a diffe re nt sc he dule ” (doc . no. 1 a t ¶ 2 1 ). Pla int iff “disput e s” t ha t she re que st e d pa rt -t im e hours a nd c ont e nds t ha t she w a s m e re ly a sk ing for full-t im e t ha t w a s le ss t ha n “5 0 -5 5 hours” (doc . no. 3 0 a t 1 6 , 2 3 ). Pla int iff’s ow n w rit t e n re que st doe s not support he r c ha ra c t e riza t ion. She spe c ific a lly re que st e d t o w ork “pa rt t im e ,” sugge st e d “pe rha ps a pprox . 3 2 .5 t o 3 5 hours,” a nd indic a t e d t ha t she w ould be “a va ila ble t o re sum e full-t im e st a t us of w ork ing 4 0 hours pe r w e e k ” in t he sum m e r (doc . no. 2 5 -7 a t 4 ). Give n pla int iff’s ow n w ords, Lyons re a sona bly unde rst ood t ha t pla int iff w a s re que st ing pa rt -t im e hours (Lyons De p. 1 6 -2 2 ). 3 On N ove m be r 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 , Cove nt ry inform e d DDR t ha t a diffe re nt c om pa ny (U rba n) w ould be t a k ing ove r t he m a na ge m e nt of t he T ri-Cit y M a ll a s of De c e m be r 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 (doc . no. 2 3 -2 a t 2 , “St ipula t ion of Fa c t s”). Due t o t his c ha nge in m a na ge m e nt , DDR e lim ina t e d a ll it s e m ploye e posit ions a t T ri Count y M a ll (inc luding pla int iff’s posit ion), e ffe c t ive De c e m be r 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 . Prior t o t he da t e U rba n w a s sc he dule d t o a ssum e m a na ge m e nt , Bria n Alpe r, Se nior V ic e Pre side nt of H um a n Re sourc e s for U rba n, c ont a c t e d DDR’s Ge ne ra l M a na ge r (M ic ha e l Lyons) t o be gin a rra nging t he t ra nsfe r of m a na ge m e nt . U rba n w a s int e re st e d in hiring t he c urre nt e m ploye e s a t t he m a ll, a nd Alpe r a sk e d Lyons if t he re w a s a nyone on t he c urre nt DDR st a ff w hose re sponsibilit ie s w ould not fit int o t he U rba n syst e m . Lyons ha d pre viously w ork e d for U rba n for se ve ra l ye a rs a s t he Assist a nt Ge ne ra l M a na ge r a t K e nw ood M a ll in Cinc inna t i, Ohio, a nd w a s fa m ilia r w it h U rba n’s pra c t ic e s a nd it s a c c ount ing syst e m (doc . no. 3 1 a t 3 , ¶ ¶ 1 0 -1 2 ). Lyon indic a t e d t ha t DDR a nd U rba n use d diffe re nt a c c ount ing syst e m s a nd t ha t t he re sponsibilit ie s of DDR’s on-sit e a c c ount a nt w e re subst a nt ia lly diffe re nt from t he re sponsibilit ie s of U rba n’s on-sit e a c c ount a nt (Lyons De p. a t 8 8 ). 4 Spe c ific a lly, DDR ha d a c e nt ra lize d a c c ount ing de pa rt m e nt w hose func t ions pla int iff a dm inist ra t ive ly a ssist e d, w he re a s U rba n ha d fie ld-ba se d a c c ount ing t ha t re quire d m ore in-de pt h a c c ount ing k now le dge a nd sk ills unde r a diffe re nt progra m (doc . no. 3 1 a t ¶ 1 3 ). Alt hough pla int iff “disput e s” t ha t t he posit ions w e re subst a nt ia lly diffe re nt , she a c k now le dge s t ha t U rba n use d a diffe re nt a c c ount ing progra m (“CT I ”) t ha n DDR a nd t ha t she ha d not use d it . T he sa lie nt point he re is w he t he r Lyons brought Alpe r’s a t t e nt ion to t he diffe re nc e s be t w e e n t he t w o a c c ount ing posit ions. T he e vide nc e is undisput e d t ha t he did (doc . no. 3 2 a t ¶ 1 5 ). On N ove m be r 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 , Alpe r e m a ile d Pa t ric k Dunne , V ic e Pre side nt , Re giona l Ac c ount ing M a na ge r for U rba n, t o a sk him t o spe a k w it h Sa rva k “t o ge t a fe e l for w ha t she w ould be c a pa ble of doing by disc ussing t he role t ha t a n onsit e a c c ount a nt pla ys w it h U rba n” (doc . no. 2 5 -7 a t 1 8 ). Dunne ’s role in t he hiring proc e ss w a s “t o int e rvie w a c c ount a nt s a nd t he n m a k e re c om m e nda t ions w he t he r w e should hire t he m ” (doc . no. 2 5 -9 a t 3 , Dunne De p. a t 9 ). T he follow ing da y, Dunne spok e w it h Sa rva k t o de t e rm ine w he t he r she w a s c a pa ble of ha ndling t he re sponsibilit ie s of U rba n’s 5 a c c ount ing posit ion (doc . no. 3 2 a t ¶ ¶ 1 4 -1 5 ). During t his t e le phone c onve rsa t ion, Dunne le a rne d from Sa rva k t ha t she did not “post c a sh re c e ipt s, she did not e nt e r a c c ount s pa ya ble , she did not do t he re nt roll billing, she did not do re c onc ilia t ion billings a nd she did not pre pa re t he budge t . . . she ha d not w ork e d w it h CT I ” (doc . no. 2 5 -9 a t 7 , Dunne De p. a t 2 5 ). Aft e r int e rvie w ing Sa rva k , Dunne c onc lude d t ha t Sa rva k la c k e d t he ne c e ssa ry e x pe rie nc e a nd sk ills for U rba n’s fie ldba se d a c c ount ing posit ion (I d., Dunne De p. a t 2 8 “Cryst a l did not do t he dut ie s . . . t ha t t he prope rt y a c c ount a nt w ould ha ve t o do”). H e re c om m e nde d t ha t U rba n look for a not he r c a ndida t e . J oe M c Ca rt hy, Se nior V ic e Pre side nt of Ac c ount ing for U rba n, a pprove d t he re c om m e nda t ion. Dunne did not spe a k w it h Lyons, a nd Lyons w a s una w a re of U rba n’s hiring de c ision unt il la t e r. On N ove m be r 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 , Alpe r e m a ile d DDR, a dvising t ha t U rba n w ould not be hiring Sa rva k be c a use “DDR doe s a c c ount ing c e nt ra lly a nd he r c a pa bilit ie s do not se e m t o be in-line w it h w ha t w e re quire from our on-sit e a c c ount ing st a ff.” On N ove m be r 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 , Lyons inform e d e m ploye e s, inc luding Sa rva k , t ha t t he ir DDR posit ions w e re 6 be ing e lim ina t e d a s of De c e m be r 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 . H e a lso a dvise d Sa rva k of U rba n’s e m a il indic a t ing t ha t U rba n w ould not be hiring he r. U rba n post e d it s a c c ount ing posit ion on t he Ca re e r Builde r w e bsit e . Pla int iff w a s a w a re of t his, but did not a pply be c a use she ha d a lre a dy le a rne d t ha t U rba n did not int e nd t o hire he r for it s a c c ount ing posit ion. On De c e m be r 28, 2009, a ft e r re vie w ing doze ns of a pplic a t ions, U rba n hire d Pa t ric ia St a le y, a 5 7 -ye a r old w om a n, for t he posit ion (doc . no. 2 7 a t 3 , ¶ 2 0 ). St a le y ha d pre viously w ork e d for U rba n a s a prope rt y a c c ount a nt a nd ha d e x pe rie nc e w it h U rba n’s CT I a c c ount ing syst e m (¶ 2 1 ). On May 12, 2010, Sa rva k file d c ha rge s w it h t he Equa l Em ploym e nt Opport unit y Com m ission (“EEOC”) a ga inst DDR, U rba n, a nd Cove nt ry, a lle ging t ha t she w a s t e rm ina t e d by DDR/Cove nt ry a nd w a s not hire d by U rba n, due t o he r a ge , se x , or a ssoc ia t ion w it h he r disa ble d c hildre n. I n he r c ha rge , she a lle ge d (ina c c ura t e ly) t ha t DDR a nd Cove nt ry w e re “c o-ow ne rs” of t he m a ll, t ha t she w ork e d for bot h c om pa nie s, a nd t ha t she w a s re pla c e d a younge r e m ploye e (doc . no. 2 5 -2 at 8 8 ). T he EEOC found t ha t he r a lle ga t ions w e re not subst a nt ia t e d by t he e vide nc e a nd did not w a rra nt furt he r proc e ssing. 7 On Se pt e m be r 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 , t he EEOC dism isse d t he c ha rge s a nd se nt pla int iff a not ic e of suit right s (doc . nos. 2 5 -2 a t 4 5 -4 9 ; 3 2 a t ¶ ¶ 2 6 -2 7 ). On De c e m be r 2 8 , 2 0 1 0 , Sa rva k file d a six -c ount c om pla int a ga inst DDR, Cove nt ry, a nd U rba n, a lle ging disc rim ina t ion unde r fe de ra l a nd st a t e la w ba se d on he r a ge , se x , a nd a ssoc ia t ion w it h he r disa ble d c hildre n. For e a c h c ount , pla int iff re c it e s t ha t t he t hre e de fe nda nt s disc rim ina t e d a ga inst he r by “t re a t ing he r diffe re nt ly t ha n sim ila rly-sit ua t e d e m ploye e s, t e rm ina t ing he r e m ploym e nt , a nd re fusing t o hire he r.” Aft e r disc ove ry c onc lude d, t he de fe nda nt s file d t w o se pa ra t e m ot ions for sum m a ry judgm e nt , w hic h pla int iff oppose s. T he se m a t t e rs a re fully brie fe d a nd ripe for c onside ra t ion. I I . I ssue s Pre se nt e d I n t he first m ot ion, t he m a in issue is w he t he r de fe nda nt DDR is e nt it le d t o sum m a ry judgm e nt on pla int iff’s c la im s of a ge , se x , a nd a ssoc ia t iona l disa bilit y disc rim ina t ion be c a use pla int iff ha s not e st a blishe d a prim a fa c ie c a se of disc rim ina t ory disc ha rge , a nd a ddit iona lly be c a use pla int iff ha s not show n t ha t DDR’s st a t e d re a son for it s de c ision t o t e rm ina t e a ll of it s posit ions w a s pre t e x t ua l. 8 I n t he se c ond m ot ion, t he m a in issue s a re 1 ) w he t he r de fe nda nt Cove nt ry is e nt it le d t o sum m a ry judgm e nt be c a use pla int iff c onc e de s t he re is no e vide nc e t ha t Cove nt ry w a s involve d in a ny de c isions re ga rding pla int iff’s e m ploym e nt ; a nd 2 ) w he t he r de fe nda nt U rba n is e nt it le d t o sum m a ry judgm e nt be c a use pla int iff ha s not e st a blishe d a prim a fa c ie c a se of “fa ilure t o hire ” a nd a ddit iona lly be c a use pla int iff ha s not show n t ha t U rba n’s st a t e d re a sons for it s hiring de c ision w e re a pre t e x t for disc rim ina t ion. I I I . St a nda rd of Re vie w Rule 5 6 (a ) of t he Fe de ra l Rule s of Civil provide s in re le va nt pa rt : A pa rt y m a y m ove for sum m a ry judgm e nt , ide nt ifying e a c h c la im or de fe nse or t he pa rt of e a c h c la im or de fe nse on w hic h sum m a ry judgm e nt is sought . T he c ourt sha ll gra nt sum m a ry judgm e nt if t he m ova nt show s t ha t t he re is no ge nuine disput e a s t o a ny m a t e ria l fa c t a nd t he m ova nt is e nt it le d t o judgm e nt a s a m a t t e r of la w . Fe d.R.Civ.P. 5 6 (a ). U nde r Rule 5 6 , t he m oving pa rt y be a rs t he burde n of proving t ha t no ge nuine disput e of m a t e ria l fa c t e x ist s. M a t sushit a Ele c . I ndus. Co. v. Z e nit h Ra dio Corp., 4 7 5 U .S. 5 7 4 , 5 8 6 (l9 8 6 ). T he c ourt m ust c onst rue t he e vide nc e a nd dra w a ll re a sona ble infe re nc e s in fa vor of t he nonm oving pa rt y. I d. a t 5 8 7 . I n doing so, t he U nit e d St a t e s Supre m e 9 Court ha s e x pla ine d t ha t c ourt s m ust dist inguish be t w e e n e vide nc e of disput e d m a t e ria l fa c t s a nd m e re “disput e d m a t t e rs of profe ssiona l judgm e nt ,” i.e . disa gre e m e nt a s t o le ga l im plic a t ions of t hose fa c t s. Be a rd v. Ba nk s, 5 4 8 U .S. 5 2 1 , 5 2 9 3 0 (2 0 0 6 ). T he dist ric t c ourt m ust de t e rm ine “w he t he r t he e vide nc e pre se nt s a suffic ie nt disa gre e m e nt t o re quire subm ission t o a jury or w he t he r it is so one -side d t ha t one pa rt y m ust pre va il a s a m a t t e r of la w .” Ande rson v. Libe rt y Lobby, I nc ., 4 7 7 U .S. 2 4 2 , 2 5 1 -5 2 (1 9 8 6 ). A ge nuine disput e e x ist s “only w he n t he re is suffic ie nt e vide nc e on w hic h t he jury c ould re a sona bly find for t he pla int iff.” I d. a t 2 5 2 . On sum m a ry judgm e nt re vie w , t he c ourt ’s role is not t o “w e igh t he e vide nc e a nd de t e rm ine t he t rut h of t he m a t t e r,” but ra t he r, t o de t e rm ine w he t he r t he re a re a ny ge nuine disput e s of m a t e ria l fa c t for t ria l. I d. a t 2 4 9 . I V . Re le va nt La w T he Age Disc rim ina t ion in Em ploym e nt Ac t (“ADEA”) forbids a n e m ploye r from disc ha rging a n e m ploye e “be c a use of suc h individua l's a ge .” 2 9 U .S.C. § 6 2 3 (a )(1 ). 10 T it le V I I of t he Civil Right s Ac t of 1 9 6 4 provide s in re le va nt pa rt t ha t a n e m ploye r m a y not “disc rim ina t e a ga inst a ny individua l w it h re spe c t t o . . . c om pe nsa t ion, t e rm s, c ondit ions, or privile ge s of e m ploym e nt , be c a use of suc h individua l's . . . se x .” 4 2 U .S.C. § 2 0 0 0 e 2 (a )(1 ). Se c t ion 1 0 2 (b)4 of t he Am e ric a ns w it h Disa bilit ie s Ac t (“ADA”), prohibit s “e x c luding or ot he rw ise de nying e qua l job be ne fit s t o a qua lifie d individua l be c a use of t he k now n disa bilit y of a n individua l w it h w hom t he qua lifie d individua l is k now n t o ha ve a re la t ionship or a ssoc ia t ion.” 4 2 U .S.C. § 1 2 1 1 2 (b)(4 ). U nde r Ohio la w , R.C. § 4 1 1 2 .0 2 provide s t ha t it sha ll be a n unla w ful disc rim ina t ory pra c t ic e : (A) For a ny e m ploye r, be c a use of t he ... [a ge , se x , or disa bilit y] ... of a ny pe rson, t o disc ha rge w it hout just c a use , t o re fuse t o hire , or ot he rw ise t o disc rim ina t e a ga inst t ha t pe rson w it h re spe c t t o hire , t e nure , t e rm s, c ondit ions, or privile ge s of e m ploym e nt , or a ny m a t t e r dire c t ly or indire c t ly re la t e d t o e m ploym e nt . . . Give n t he sim ila rit y of t he st a t e a nd fe de ra l st a t ut e s, c ourt s m a y ge ne ra lly a pply fe de ra l pre c e de nt to e m ploym e nt disc rim ina t ion c la im s unde r Ohio la w . Se e H a m pe l v. Food I ngre die nt s Spe c ia lt ie s, 11 I nc ., 7 2 9 N .E.2 d 7 2 6 , 7 3 1 (Ohio 2 0 0 0 ); H a w k ins v. Anhe use r Busc h, I nc ., 5 1 7 F.3 d 3 2 1 , 3 3 3 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 9 ); Ge na ro v. Ce nt . T ra nsport , 8 4 Ohio St .3 d 293, 298 (1 9 9 9 ) (re lia nc e on fe de ra l de c isions for int e rpre t a t ion of Ohio la w is a ppropria t e w he n t he t e rm s of t he st a t ut e s a re c onsist e nt or w he n t he Ohio st a t ut e ha s le ft a t e rm unde fine d). I n m ost inst a nc e s, re solut ion of t he fe de ra l c la im s w ill re solve t he st a t e c la im s a s w e ll. Se e M ina de o v. I CI Pa int s, 3 9 8 F.3 d 7 5 1 , 7 6 3 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 5 ) (a ge ); Ge t t ings v. Bldg. La b. Loc a l 3 1 0 Fringe Be n. Fund, 3 4 9 F.3 d 3 0 0 , 3 0 5 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 3 ) (se x ); J a k ubow sk i v. T he Christ H ospit a l, 6 2 7 F.3 d 1 9 5 , 2 0 1 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 1 0 ) (disa bilit y). An e m ploym e nt disc rim ina t ion c a se m a y be ba se d upon dire c t or indire c t e vide nc e . Dire c t e vide nc e is “e vide nc e t ha t prove s t he e x ist e nc e of a fa c t w it hout re quiring a ny infe re nc e s,” Row a n v. Loc k he e d M a rt in Ene rgy Sys., I nc ., 3 6 0 F.3 d 5 4 4 , 5 4 8 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 4 ), w he re a s indire c t e vide nc e re quire s t he dra w ing of a n infe re nc e . J ohnson v. K roge r Co., 3 1 9 F.3 d 8 5 8 , 8 6 5 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 3 ). For e m ploym e nt disc rim ina t ion c la im s ba se d on indire c t e vide nc e , t he burde n shift ing e vide nt ia ry fra m e w ork of M c Donne ll Dougla s Corp. v. Gre e n, 4 1 1 U .S. 7 9 2 (1 9 7 3 ), a s m odifie d by T e x a s 12 De pt . of Com m unit y Affa irs v. Burdine , 4 5 0 U .S. 2 4 8 , 2 5 6 (1 9 8 1 ), a pplie s. Se e Spe ngle r v. Wort hingt on Cylinde rs, 6 1 5 F.3 d 4 8 1 , 4 9 1 -9 2 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 1 0 ) (a ge ); Pe lt ie r v. U nit e d St a t e s, 3 8 8 F.3 d 9 8 4 , 9 8 7 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 4 ) (se x ); Sm it h v. Chrysle r Corp., 1 5 5 F.3 d 7 9 9 , 8 0 5 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 9 8 ) (disa bilit y). T he burde n-shift ing e vide nt ia ry fra m e w ork a lso a pplie s t o Ohio c la im s ba se d on indire c t e vide nc e . Corye ll v. Ba nk One T rust Co. N .A., 1 0 1 Ohio St .3 d 1 7 5 , 1 7 9 (2 0 0 4 ); Lit t le Fore st M e d. Ct r. of Ak ron v. Ohio Civ. Right s Com m ., 6 1 Ohio St .3 d 6 0 7 , 6 1 0 (1 9 9 1 ) (“t he re quisit e burde ns of proof re ga rding pa rt ic ula r e vide nt ia ry issue s e st a blishe d by t he fe de ra l c ourt s a re re le va nt in de t e rm ining w he t he r t he re e x ist s re lia ble , proba t ive a nd subst a nt ia l e vide nc e of disc rim ina t ion in viola t ion of R.C. Cha pt e r 4 1 1 2 ”). A pla int iff m ust first e st a blish a prim a fa c ie c a se of e m ploym e nt disc rim ina t ion. U pon doing so, t he burde n shift s t o t he e m ploye r t o “a rt ic ula t e a nondisc rim ina t ory re a son for it s a c t ion.” H a rris v. M e t ro. Gov. of N a shville & Da vidson Ct y., T e nn., 5 9 4 F.3 d 4 7 6 , 4 8 5 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 1 0 ). I f t he e m ploye r doe s so, t he pla int iff m ust t he n re but t he proffe re d re a son by point ing t o suffic ie nt e vide nc e from w hic h t he jury 13 m a y re a sona bly re je c t t he e m ploye r's e x pla na t ion a s pre t e x t ua l. Sc hoonm a k e r v. Spa rt a n G. L., LLC, 5 9 4 F.3 d 4 7 6 , 2 6 4 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 1 0 ). A pla int iff c a n re but t he e m ploye r’s le git im a t e , nondisc rim ina t ory re a son by show ing t ha t it : (1 ) ha d no ba sis in fa c t , (2 ) did not a c t ua lly m ot iva t e t he t e rm ina t ion, or (3 ) w a s insuffic ie nt t o m ot iva t e t he a dve rse a c t ion. Che n v. Dow Che m ic a l Co., 5 8 0 F.3 d 3 9 4 , 4 0 0 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 9 ). T he ult im a t e que st ion in e ve ry e m ploym e nt disc rim ina t ion c a se is w he t he r t he pla int iff w a s t he vic t im of int e nt iona l disc rim ina t ion. Re e ve s v. Sa nde rson Plum bing Prods., I nc ., 5 3 0 U .S. 1 3 3 , 1 5 3 (2 0 0 0 ). Alt hough t he burde n of produc t ion shift s, pla int iff re t a ins t he ult im a t e burde n of pe rsua sion a t a ll t im e s t o de m onst ra t e “t ha t a ge w as t he ‘but -for’ c a use of [t he ] e m ploye r's a dve rse a c t ion.” Sc hoonm a k e r, 5 9 5 F.3 d a t 2 6 4 (quot ing Gross, 1 2 9 S.Ct . a t 2 3 5 1 fn. 4 ); Y e sc hic k v. M ine t a , 6 7 5 F.3 d 6 2 2 , 6 3 2 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 1 2 ) (sa m e ). Sim ila rly, in ADA c a se s, pla int iff be a rs t he burde n of de m onst ra t ing t ha t disa bilit y w a s a “but for” c a use of t he e m ploye r’s a dve rse a c t ion. Le w is v. H um boldt Ac quisit ion Corp., I nc ., 6 8 1 F.3 d 3 1 2 , 3 1 5 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 1 2 ) (e n ba nc ). V . Disc ussion 14 A. Pla int iff’s Age a nd Se x Disc rim ina t ion Cla im s Aga inst DDR T o e st a blish a prim a fa c ie c a se of a ge or se x disc rim ina t ion ba se d on indire c t e vide nc e , t he pla int iff m ust show t ha t (1 ) she w a s a m e m be r of a prot e c t e d c la ss (i.e . ove r fort y, fe m a le ); (2 ) she suffe re d a n a dve rse e m ploym e nt a c t ion; (3 ) she w a s qua lifie d for t he posit ion; a nd (4 ) she w a s re pla c e d by som e one subst a nt ia lly younge r a nd/or m a le , or w a s t re a t e d diffe re nt ly t ha n sim ila rly sit ua t e d, nonprot e c t e d e m ploye e s. Pe lt ie r, 3 8 8 F.3 d a t 9 8 7 (se x ); Ge ige r v. T ow e r Aut om ot ive , 5 7 9 F.3 d 6 1 4 , 6 2 2 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 9 ) (a ge ). DDR’s e lim ina t ion of a ll jobs a t t he m a ll w a s e sse nt ia lly a w ork forc e re duc t ion. Ge ige r, 5 7 9 F.3 d a t 623 (“A w ork forc e re duc t ion sit ua t ion oc c urs w he n busine ss c onside ra t ions c a use a n e m ploye r t o e lim ina t e one or m ore posit ions w it hin t he c om pa ny.”). Whe n a n e m ploye e is disc ha rge d a s pa rt of a w ork forc e re duc t ion, t he fourt h e le m e nt is m odifie d to re quire “a ddit iona l dire c t , c irc um st a nt ia l, or st a t ist ic a l e vide nc e t e nding t o indic a t e t ha t t he e m ploye r single d out t he pla int iff for disc ha rge for im pe rm issible re a sons.” I d. (c it ing Ba rne s v. Ge nCorp, I nc ., 8 9 6 F.2 d 1 4 5 7 , 1 4 6 5 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 9 0 )); M e t z v. T it a nium M e t a ls Corp., 2 0 1 2 WL 1 0 3 4 6 5 3 , * 2 (6 t h Cir. (Ohio)) (sa m e ). 15 T he re c ord re fle c t s t ha t : 1 ) pla int iff w a s fe m a le a nd ove r fort y; 2 ) she w a s subje c t t o a n a dve rse a c t ion w he n DDR e lim ina t e d he r posit ion (t he re by t e rm ina t ing he r e m ploym e nt w it h DDR); a nd 3 ) she w a s qua lifie d for he r DDR posit ion. T he first t hre e prongs of pla int iff’s prim a fa c ie c a se a ga inst DDR a re m e t . At t he fourt h prong, DDR a sse rt s t ha t pla int iff ha s not show n t ha t she w a s “re pla c e d” by som e one m a le or subst a nt ia lly younge r, nor ha s she show n t ha t she w a s “t re a t e d diffe re nt ly” t ha n a ny sim ila rly sit ua t e d e m ploye e s. Pla int iff w a s not re pla c e d by a nyone in he r form e r DDR posit ion, a s t ha t job w a s e lim ina t e d a nd no longe r e x ist e d. She w a s not t re a t e d diffe re nt ly t ha n a ny ot he r DDR e m ploye e , a s a ll DDR e m ploye e s a t t he T ri-Cit y M a ll – re ga rdle ss of t he ir a ge or se x -- w e re t e rm ina t e d from DDR. T he t e rm ina t e d DDR e m ploye e s inc lude d nine w om e n a nd five m e n. Five w e re younge r t ha n pla int iff a nd e ight w e re olde r t ha n pla int iff. All w e re t e rm ina t e d from t he ir DDR posit ions. At t he fourt h prong, pla int iff ha s fa ile d t o put fort h a ny e vide nc e t e nding t o indic a t e t ha t t he e m ploye r single d out t he pla int iff for disc ha rge for im pe rm issible re a sons. Pla int iff ha s not show n a ny dispa ra t e t re a t m e nt by DDR a nd ha s fa ile d t o se t fort h a prim a fa c ie c a se . Se e , 16 e .g., Spe rbe r v. N ic holson, 3 4 2 Fe d. Appx . 1 3 1 , 1 3 2 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 9 ) (obse rving t ha t e m ploye e fa ile d t o e st a blish prim a fa c ie c a se of disc rim ina t ion, a bse nt e vide nc e t ha t sim ila rly-sit ua t e d non-prot e c t e d e m ploye e s w e re t re a t e d diffe re nt ly). M ore ove r, DDR ha s a dva nc e d a le git im a t e non-disc rim ina t ory re a son for pla int iff’s t e rm ina t ion, na m e ly, t ha t DDR lost t he c ont ra c t t o m a na ge t he m a ll, a nd t hus, ha d t o e lim ina t e a ll t he e m ploye e posit ions a t t ha t loc a t ion. Se e Be ll v. Pre fix , I nc ., 3 2 1 Fe d. Appx . 4 2 3 , 4 2 8 n. 1 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 9 ) (e x pla ining t ha t ARI Fs a re le git im a t e , nondisc rim ina t ory re a sons for a dve rse e m ploym e nt de c isions@); Ga m bill v. Duk e Ene rgy Corp., 4 5 6 Fe d. Appx . 5 7 8 , 5 8 8 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 1 2 ) (sa m e ). Pla int iff ha s not re but t e d DDR’s st a t e d re a son by point ing t o a ny e vide nc e t ha t he r e m ploye r’s st a t e d re a son ha d no ba sis in fa c t , did not a c t ua lly m ot iva t e he r t e rm ina t ion, or w as insuffic ie nt to m ot iva t e t he e m ploye r's a c t ion. Che n, 5 8 0 F.3 d a t 4 0 0 . “At t he sum m a ry judgm e nt st a ge , t he issue is w he t he r t he pla int iff ha s produc e d e vide nc e from w hic h a jury c ould re a sona bly doubt t he e m ploye r's e x pla na t ion.” Che n, 5 8 0 F.3 d a t 4 0 0 n. 4 ; Grizze ll v. Cit y of Colum bus Div. of Polic e , 4 6 1 F.3 d 7 1 1 , 7 1 9 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 6 ). 17 Pla int iff ha s not pre se nt e d e vide nc e from w hic h a jury c ould re a sona bly infe r t ha t t he e lim ina t ion of t he DDR posit ions, inc luding pla int iff’s posit ion, w a s m e re ly a pre t e x t for a ny disc rim ina t ion. B. Pla int iff’s “Assoc ia t iona l Disa bilit y” ADA Cla im Aga inst DDR Pla int iff c la im s t ha t he r disc ha rge from DDR w a s disc rim ina t ory be c a use she ha s t w o disa ble d c hildre n. A pla int iff m a y e st a blish a prim a fa c ie c la im of a ssoc ia t iona l disa bilit y unde r t he ADA by show ing t ha t “(1 ) she w a s qua lifie d for t he posit ion; (2 ) she w a s subje c t t o a n a dve rse e m ploym e nt a c t ion; (3 ) she w a s k now n t o ha ve a re la t ive w it h a disa bilit y; a nd (4 ) t he a dve rse e m ploym e nt a c t ion oc c urre d unde r a c irc um st a nc e t ha t ra ise s a re a sona ble infe re nc e t ha t t he disa bilit y of t he re la t ive w a s a de t e rm ining fa c t or in t he de c ision.” St a nsbe rry v. Air Wis. Airline s Corp., 6 5 1 F.3 d 4 8 2 , 4 8 7 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 1 1 ); Ove rly v. Cove na nt T ra nsport , I nc ., 1 7 8 Fe d. Appx . 4 8 8 , 4 9 3 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 6 ). A pla int iff “m ust offe r som e e vide nc e t o sugge st t ha t t he a dve rse e m ploym e nt a c t ion . . . she suffe re d w a s due in som e m e a sure t o disc rim ina t ory a nim us.” St a nsbe rry, 6 5 1 F.3 d a t 4 8 8 . Pla int iff ha s fa ile d t o do so. As a lre a dy disc usse d, a ll t he DDR e m ploye e s a t t ha t loc a t ion w e re t e rm ina t e d from DDR on t he sa m e da y w he n t he ir 18 posit ions w e re e lim ina t e d. T his ra ise s no re a sona ble infe re nc e of disc rim ina t ory a nim us a ga inst pla int iff. Se e , e .g., St urge on v. Sout he rn Ohio M e d. Ct r., 2 0 1 1 WL 5 8 7 8 3 8 7 , * 1 2 (S.D. Ohio) (J . DLot t ) ("[pla int iff] ha s not ide nt ifie d a ny spe c ific e vide nc e w hic h ra ise s a re a sona ble infe re nc e t ha t [de fe nda nt ] ha rbore d disc rim ina t ory a nim us t ow a rds he r ba se d on he r husba nd's disa bilit y"). DDR is e nt it le d t o sum m a ry judgm e nt on pla int iff’s “disa bilit y a ssoc ia t ion” c la im unde r t he ADA. T o t he e x t e nt pla int iff is a t t e m pt ing t o a sse rt a n “a ssoc ia t iona l” c la im unde r Ohio la w (doc . no. 1 a t ¶ ¶ 5 0 -5 6 ), c ourt s ha ve re pe a t e dly he ld t ha t no suc h c la im e x ist s in t he disa bilit y c ont e x t unde r Ohio la w . Sm it h v. H ink le M fg. I nc ., 3 6 Fe d. Appx . 8 2 5 , 8 3 0 -3 1 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 2 ) (point ing out t ha t , unlik e t he ADA, t he Ohio st a t ut e “c ont a ins no c om pa ra ble prohibit ion a ga inst a ssoc ia t iona l disc rim ina t ion”); Be rry v. Fra nk 's Aut o Body Ca rst a r, I nc ., 817 F.Supp.2 d 1037, 1 0 4 7 –4 8 (S.D.Ohio 2 0 1 1 ) (“T his Court ha s follow e d t he holding of Sm it h, a s ha s t he N ort he rn Dist ric t of Ohio.”); Wink e lm a nn v. Big Lot s St ore s, I nc ., 2 0 0 9 WL 3 7 8 8 6 7 3 , a t * 1 (S.D.Ohio) (“t he Ohio disc rim ina t ion st a t ut e , unlik e fe de ra l la w , c ont a ins no prohibit ion a ga inst a ssoc ia t iona l disc rim ina t ion”); St urge on, 2 0 1 1 WL 5 8 7 8 3 8 7 , * 1 (S.D.Ohio) (holding 19 t ha t pla int iff's c la im fa ile d a s a m a t t e r of la w be c a use t he re “is no a ssoc ia t iona l disa bilit y c la im unde r Ohio la w ”); Ba k e r v. Cit y of T ole do, Ohio, 2 0 0 7 WL 1 1 0 1 2 5 4 , a t * 6 (N .D.Ohio 2 0 0 7 ) (“t he re is no suc h c la im unde r st a t e la w ”); Ant hony v. U nit e d T e l. Co. of Ohio, 2 7 7 F.Supp.2 d 7 6 3 , 7 7 6 (N .D.Ohio 2 0 0 2 ) (“Ohio la w doe s not re c ognize suc h a c la im ”). Addit iona lly, a lt hough it is unc le a r w he t he r pla int iff is a sse rt ing a “fa ilure t o a c c om m oda t e ” c la im a ga inst DDR, suc h c la im w ould a lso be subje c t t o sum m a ry judgm e nt . I n he r c om pla int , pla int iff a lle ge s t ha t she “m a de a re que st t o he r boss, M ic ha e l Lyons, Ge ne ra l M a na ge r, for a re vise d w ork sc he dule due t o providing c a re for he r disa ble d c hildre n” (doc . no. 1 a t ¶ 2 1 ). T he ADA de fine s disc rim ina t ion t o inc lude “not m a k ing re a sona ble a c c om m oda t ions to t he k now n physic a l or m e nt a l lim it a t ions of a n ot he rw ise qua lifie d individua l w it h a disa bilit y.” 4 2 U .S.C. § 1 2 1 1 2 (b)(5 )(A). T he e vide nc e doe s not re fle c t t ha t pla int iff w a s disa ble d, a nd t he fe de ra l re gula t ions provide t ha t e m ploye rs a re not re quire d t o provide re a sona ble a c c om m oda t ion t o non-disa ble d w ork e rs unde r t he ADA. Se e 2 9 C.F.R. § 1 6 3 0 .8 App. a t 3 7 9 (2 0 0 7 ); St a nsbe rry, 6 5 1 F.3 d a t 4 8 9 (“[pla int iff] w a s not e nt it le d t o a re a sona ble a c c om m oda t ion on a c c ount of his w ife 's disa bilit y”); 20 Ove rly, 1 7 8 Fe d. Appx . a t 4 9 3 (“U nlik e a c la im brought by a disa ble d pe rson, a n e m ploye r is not re quire d t o re a sona bly a c c om m oda t e a n e m ploye e ba se d on he r a ssoc ia t ion w it h a disa ble d pe rson.”). M ore ove r, DDR c ould prope rly de c line t o a llow pla int iff t o w ork pa rt -t im e in a full-t im e posit ion. For e x a m ple , in Ove rle y, 1 7 8 Fe d. Appx . a t 4 9 3 , t he Six t h Circ uit a ffirm e d sum m a ry judgm e nt for t he e m ploye r, e x pla ining: “[Pla int iff] c a nnot c la im t ha t [he r e m ploye r] disc rim ina t e d a ga inst he r by not . . . a llow ing he r t o m odify he r sc he dule so t ha t she c ould c a re for he r da ught e r. An e m ploye e w ho c a nnot m e e t t he a t t e nda nc e re quire m e nt s of he r job is not prot e c t e d by 1 2 1 1 2 (b)(4 ).” Alt hough pla int iff a rgue s t ha t she re que st e d “re duc e d full-t im e hours,” he r ow n w rit t e n re que st indic a t e s t ha t she re que st e d pa rt -t im e hours. A dist ric t c ourt ne e d not vie w t he a lle ge d fa c t s in t he light m ost fa vora ble t o t he nonm oving pa rt y if t ha t pa rt y’s ve rsion of e ve nt s is “bla t a nt ly c ont ra dic t e d by t he re c ord, so t ha t no re a sona ble jury c ould be lie ve it .” Sc ot t v. H a rris, 5 5 0 U .S. 3 7 2 , 3 8 0 (2 0 0 7 ). T he re c ord re fle c t s no ge nuine disput e s of m a t e ria l fa c t a s t o a ny a lle ge d “fa ilure t o a c c om m oda t e .” U nde r a ny t he ory, DDR is e nt it le d t o sum m a ry judgm e nt on pla int iff’s c la im unde r t he ADA. 21 B. Pla int iff’s Cla im s Aga inst Cove nt ry De fe nda nt Cove nt ry, t he ow ne r of t he T ri-Cit y M a ll, m ove s for sum m a ry judgm e nt be c a use “t he re is no e vide nc e t ha t it w a s involve d in a ny de c ision re la t ing t o [pla int iff’s] e m ploym e nt .” Cove nt ry point s out t ha t it did not e m ploy pla int iff a nd ha d not hing t o do w it h t he e m ploym e nt de c isions a t issue . Pla int iff a ppropria t e ly “doe s not disput e dism issa l of De fe nda nt Cove nt ry Re a l Est a t e Advisors from t his suit ” (doc . no. 3 0 a t 6 , fn.1 ). Give n t he la c k of a ny ge nuine disput e s of m a t e ria l fa c t a s t o t his de fe nda nt , Cove nt ry is e nt it le d t o sum m a ry judgm e nt on a ll of pla int iff’s c la im s a ga inst it . C. Pla int iff’s “Fa ilure t o H ire ” Cla im s Aga inst U rba n De fe nda nt U rba n m ove s for sum m a ry judgm e nt on pla int iff’s c la im s t ha t U rba n disc rim ina t e d a ga inst he r on t he ba sis of he r a ge , se x , a nd/or disa bilit y a ssoc ia t ion w he n it c hose not t o hire he r for it s a c c ount ing posit ion, a nd inst e a d, c hose a be t t e r-qua lifie d a pplic a nt for t he posit ion. T he Court m ust first c onside r w he t he r pla int iff is proc e e ding w it h dire c t or indire c t e vide nc e . Pla int iff a rgue s t ha t she ha s pre se nt e d “dire c t ” e vide nc e be c a use Lyon’s 22 c om m e nt s to Alpe r a lle ge dly “influe nc e d” U rba n’s de c ision (doc . no. 3 0 a t 1 8 -2 0 ). Lyons w a s e m ploye d by DDR a t t he t im e a nd a c c ura t e ly indic a t e d t o Alpe r t ha t t he t w o c om pa nie s ha d diffe re nt a c c ount ing syst e m s a nd t ha t t he onsit e posit ions involve d subst a nt ia lly diffe re nt dut ie s a nd sk ill le ve ls. Pla int iff urge s t ha t Lyons’ st a t e m e nt s t o Alpe r w e re root e d in disc rim ina t ory a nim us. I n t he first pla c e , Lyons’ c om m e nt s w e re obje c t ive , fa c t ua lly a c c ura t e , a nd do not re fle c t a ny disc rim ina t ory a nim us on t he ir fa c e . A st a t e m e nt of c onc e rn by a supe rvisor t ha t a n e m ploye e c a nnot pe rform t he job in que st ion in re sponse t o a va lid inquiry is not dire c t e vide nc e of bia s. H e dric k v. W. Re se rve Ca re Sys., 3 5 5 F.3 d 4 4 4 , 4 5 5 (6 t h Cir.), c e rt . de nie d, 5 4 3 U .S. 8 1 7 (2 0 0 4 ). Alt hough pla int iff urge s t ha t t he se fa c t ua lly a c c ura t e c om m e nt s should be c onst rue d a s disc rim ina t ory, t his w ould re quire a n infe re nc e re ga rding Lyons’ purport e d m ot iva t ion. “Evide nc e is not c onside re d dire c t e vide nc e unle ss a [n im prope r] m ot iva t ion is e x plic it ly e x pre sse d.” Grubb v. Y SK Corp., 4 0 1 Fe d. Appx . 1 0 4 , 1 0 9 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 1 0 ). Pla int iff’s c a se t he re fore de pe nds on c irc um st a nt ia l e vide nc e . Grizze ll, 4 6 1 F.3 d at 719 (t he infe re nc e pre ve nt s t he e vide nc e ). 23 e vide nc e from be ing dire c t M ore ove r, t he e vide nc e re fle c t s t ha t Lyons, a s a DDR e m ploye e , ha d no a ut horit y ove r a ny hiring de c ision a t U rba n. “Com m e nt s m a de by individua ls w ho a re not involve d in t he de c ision m a k ing proc e ss re ga rding t he pla int iff's e m ploym e nt do not c onst it ut e dire c t e vide nc e of disc rim ina t ion.” Ca rt e r v. U niv. of T ole do, 3 4 9 F.3 d 2 6 9 , 2 7 3 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 3 ). Alt hough pla int iff m a k e s m uc h of t he fa c t t ha t Lyons (a nd t he re st of t he DDR e m ploye e s a t t he m a ll) w e re la t e r hire d by U rba n a nd a rgue s t ha t Lyons k ne w he w a s lik e ly t o be hire d by U rba n, t his doe s not c ha nge t he fa c t t ha t he ha d no a ut horit y t o m a k e (a nd did not m a k e ) t he hiring de c ision a t issue for U rba n. Pla int iff’s re lia nc e on t he “c a t ’s pa w ” t he ory of lia bilit y is m ispla c e d. 1 T his phra se “re fe rs t o a sit ua t ion in w hic h a bia se d subordina t e , w ho la c k s de c isionm a k ing pow e r, influe nc e s t he unbia se d de c isionm a k e r t o m a k e a n a dve rse [e m ploym e nt ] de c ision, t he re by hiding t he subordina t e 's disc rim ina t ory int e nt .” H orne r v. K le in, 2 0 1 2 WL 3 7 1 1 5 5 6 , * 6 (6 t h Cir. (Ohio)) (quot ing Cobbins v. T e nn. 1 Se e Are nda le v. Cit y of M e m phis, 5 1 9 F.3 d 5 8 7 , 6 0 4 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 8 ) (e x pla ining t ha t t he t e rm “c a t ’s pa w ” is t a k e n from a fa ble w he re a m onk e y t ric k s a c a t int o sc ooping c he snut s from a fire so t ha t t he m onk e y c a n e a t t he c he snut s, le a ving none for t he c a t ). 24 De pt . of T ra nsp., 5 6 6 F.3 d 5 8 2 , 5 8 6 n. 5 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 9 )). As a lre a dy not e d, Lyons w a s e m ploye d by DDR, not U rba n, a t t he re le va nt t im e . Pla int iff re lie s on St a ub v. Proc t or H ospit a l, 1 3 1 S.Ct . 1 1 8 6 (2 0 1 1 ), w hic h involve d a ve t e ra n’s c la im of disc rim ina t ory disc ha rge unde r t he U niform Se rvic e Em ploym e nt a nd Re de ploym e nt Right s Ac t (U SERRA). St a ub’s supe rvisor w a s host ile t o St a ub’s m ilit a ry se rvic e obliga t ions. T he de c ision-m a k e r w it hin t he c om pa ny re lie d on t he supe rvisor’s a c c usa t ions a nd fire d St a ub. U nde r t he “c a t ’s pa w ” t he ory, a n e m ploye r m a y be re sponsible w he n t he e m ploye r’s a ge nt c om m it s a n a c t ba se d on disc rim ina t ory a nim us t ha t w a s int e nde d t o c a use , a nd did c a use , t he a dve rse e m ploym e nt de c ision. I d. a t 1 1 8 7 . T he St a ub c a se is dist inguisha ble on it s fa c t s. T he re , t he supe rvisor a nd de c ision-m a k e r w e re e m ploye d by t he sa m e c om pa ny. “T he bia se d supe rvisor a nd t he ult im a t e de c isionm a k e r . . . a c t e d a s a ge nt s of t he e nt it y t ha t t he pla int iff se e k s t o hold lia ble ; e a c h of t he m posse sse d supe rvisory a ut horit y de le ga t e d by t he ir e m ploye r a nd e x e rc ise d it in t he int e re st of t he ir e m ploye r.” St a ub, 1 3 1 S.Ct . a t 1 1 9 3 . I n t he pre se nt c a se , it is undisput e d t ha t U rba n a nd DDR w e re unre la t e d c om pa nie s. Lyons posse sse d no a ut horit y ove r U rba n’s 25 hiring de c ision a nd w a s not a n “a ge nt ” of U rba n. Alt hough pla int iff urge s t ha t Lyons subse que nt ly w e nt t o w ork for U rba n a nd should be de e m e d a n “a ge nt ” of U rba n re t roa c t ive ly (i.e ., be fore he w a s hire d by U rba n), pla int iff is a t t e m pt ing t o st re t c h t he St a ub de c ision w e ll be yond it s holding. T he e vide nc e point e d t o by pla int iff is infe re nt ia l a t be st a nd doe s not a m ount t o “dire c t ” e vide nc e . U nlik e t he supe rvisor in St a ub, Lyons did not make a ny “unfounde d” c ha rge s of m isc onduc t . N one of Lyons’ c om m e nt s t o Alpe r re fe re nc e d a nyt hing t o do w it h pla int iff’s a ge , se x , or a ssoc ia t ion w it h disa ble d pe rsons. Alt hough Sa rva k indic a t e s t ha t she “w a s t old” t ha t Lyons ha d t old U rba n she w a s a “ba d e m ploye e ” (doc . no. 2 5 -4 a t 5 ), bot h Lyons a nd U rba n de ny t his, a nd in a ny e ve nt , he a rsa y m a y not be c onside re d on sum m a ry judgm e nt . Se e , e .g. T hom pson v. Cit y of La nsing, 4 1 0 Fe d. Appx . 9 2 2 , 9 2 9 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 1 1 ) (obse rving t ha t t he pe rson w ho m a de t he a lle ge d c om m e nt s w a s not involve d in t he de c ision t o t e rm ina t e pla int iff, a nd suc h c om m e nt s w e re ina dm issible he a rsa y not subje c t t o a ny e x c e pt ion). M ore ove r, t he Supre m e Court e x pla ine d in St a ub t ha t if t he de c isionm a k e r unde rt a k e s an inve st iga t ion 26 w hic h re sult s in an a dve rse a c t ion for re a sons unre la t e d t o t he supe rvisor's origina l bia se d a c t ion, t he e m ploye r w ill not be lia ble . I d. a t 1 1 9 3 . Dunne pe rsona lly spok e w it h Sa rva k a nd inde pe nde nt ly de t e rm ine d t ha t she la c k e d t he re quisit e sk ills a nd e x pe rie nc e for U rba n’s posit ion. Pla int iff a lle ge s t ha t Lyons a lso m a de ot he r c om m e nt s t ha t she c ha ra c t e rize s a s “disc rim ina t ory.” For e x a m ple , she c ont e nds t ha t Lyons, w hile he w a s he r DDR supe rvisor, m a de c om m e nt s a bout t he diffic ult y of ba la nc ing w ork a nd hom e re sponsibilit ie s a nd st a ying hom e t o c a re for he r c hildre n. Lyons de nie s t his. Eve n supposing t ha t a ny suc h c om m e nt s w e re m a de , it is undisput e d t ha t t he y w e re not c om m unic a t e d t o U rba n a nd did not a ffe c t U rba n’s de c ision. N o e vide nc e sugge st s t ha t U rba n ha d a ny k now le dge of a ny prior c onve rsa t ions be t w e e n Lyons a nd Sa rva k . While e m ploye d a t DDR, pla int iff ne ve r c om pla ine d of a ny purport e d disc rim ina t ory c om m e nt s by he r supe rvisor. I n a ny e ve nt , a lle ge d c om m e nt s by a DDR supe rvisor w ould not be dire c t e vide nc e of disc rim ina t ion by U rba n. U nde r t he burde n-shift ing a na lysis for c la im s ba se d on indire c t e vide nc e , a pla int iff m a y e st a blish a prim a fa c ie c a se of disc rim ina t ory “fa ilure t o hire ” by show ing t ha t : (1 ) she w a s a m e m be r of a prot e c t e d 27 c la ss (i.e ., fe m a le , ove r fort y); (2 ) she a pplie d a nd w a s qua lifie d for t he posit ion; (3 ) she w a s not se le c t e d for t he posit ion; a nd (4 ) a signific a nt ly younge r (a nd/or m a le ) pe rson w a s se le c t e d. O'Connor v. Consolida t e d Coin Ca t e re rs Corp., 5 1 7 U .S. 3 0 8 , 3 1 2 -1 3 (1 9 9 6 ); se e a lso, e .g., Pe c k v. Elyria Foundry Co., 3 4 7 Fe d. Appx . 1 3 9 , 1 4 2 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 9 ) (“A prim a fa c ie c a se of se x disc rim ina t ion, ba se d on Elyria 's fa ilure t o hire Pe c k re quire s he r t o de m onst ra t e t ha t m e n w ho a pplie d t o Elyria w e re hire d inst e a d of he r.”). Pla int iff (fe m a le , a ge 4 4 ) did not form a lly a pply for t he U rba n posit ion. Give n t ha t U rba n ha d a lre a dy spok e n w it h Sa rva k , c onside re d he r for it s posit ion, a nd de c ide d not t o hire he r, t he “a pplic a t ion” re quire m e nt is de e m e d sa t isfie d. Alt hough pla int iff be lie ve s she w a s “qua lifie d” for U rba n’s posit ion (doc . no. 3 2 a t 4 , ¶ 1 5 ), she c onc e de s t ha t she ha d not use d t he CT I a c c ount ing progra m use d by U rba n. U rba n de c ide d t o hire a not he r a pplic a nt , Pa t ric ia St a le y, w ho w a s fe m a le a nd t e n ye a rs olde r t ha n pla int iff. Alt hough pla int iff “disput e s” t ha t U rba n hire d a fe m a le for t he a c c ount ing posit ion (doc . no. 3 2 a t 8 , ¶ 1 ), she point s t o no e vide nc e t ha t Pa t ric ia St a le y w a s not “fe m a le .” T he m a in purpose of t he sum m a ry judgm e nt rule is “t o isola t e a nd 28 dispose of fa c t ua lly unsupport e d c la im s." Ce lot e x Corp. v. Ca t re t t , 4 7 7 U .S. 3 7 7 , 3 2 3 3 3 (1 9 8 6 ). Pla int iff ha s not pre se nt e d a prim a fa c ie c a se of a ge or se x disc rim ina t ion. Sim ila rly, t he a lle ge d “fa ilure t o hire ” oc c urre d unde r c irc um st a nc e s t ha t ra ise no re a sona ble infe re nc e t ha t t he disa bilit y of pla int iff’s c hildre n w a s a de t e rm ining fa c t or in t he de c ision. St a nsbe rry, 6 5 1 F.3 d a t 4 8 7 . Eve n a ssum ing t ha t pla int iff e st a blishe d a prim a fa c ie c a se , U rba n ha s a rt ic ula t e d a le git im a t e , non-disc rim ina t ory re a son for it s de c ision to hire som e one e lse . U rba n hire d an a pplic a nt w it h signific a nt prior e x pe rie nc e in U rba n’s ow n a c c ount ing syst e m . Se e Be nde r v. H e c ht 's De pt . St ore s, 4 5 5 F.3 d 6 1 2 , 6 2 6 –2 7 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 6 ) (“t o survive sum m a ry judgm e nt t he re je c t e d a pplic a nt 's qua lific a t ions m ust be so signific a nt ly be t t e r t ha n t he suc c e ssful a pplic a nt 's qua lific a t ions t ha t no re a sona ble e m ploye r w ould ha ve c hose n t he la t t e r a pplic a nt ove r t he form e r”). Esse nt ia lly, U rba n hire d a be t t e rqua lifie d a pplic a nt for it s posit ion. Pla int iff ha s not show n a ny e vide nc e of pre t e x t on suc h ba sis. Se e , e .g., M it c he ll v. V a nde rbilt U niv., 3 8 9 F.3 d 1 7 7 , 1 8 1 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 4 ) (a ffirm ing sum m a ry judgm e nt for de fe nda nt e m ploye r on a ge disc rim ina t ion c la im be c a use pla int iff 29 fa ile d t o produc e a ny e vide nc e from w hic h a jury re a sona bly c ould find t ha t t he e m ploye r's re a sons for not se le c t ing pla int iff for t he posit ion w e re pre t e x t ua l). Dunne , on be ha lf of U rba n, dire c t ly c ont a c t e d pla int iff a nd inquire d a bout he r sk ills a nd dut ie s. Aft e r c onfirm ing t ha t Sa rva k w a s e sse nt ia lly in a support role for t he c e nt ra l a c c ount ing offic e , Dunne re c om m e nde d t o his boss, J oe M c Ca rt hy, t ha t U rba n look for a not he r a c c ount a nt be c a use Sa rva k la c k e d t he re quisit e sk ills for U rba n’s a c c ount ing posit ion. U rba n c hose a not he r c a ndida t e w ho w a s fa m ilia r w it h U rba n’s ow n syst e m . T o c ha lle nge a n e m ploye r’s busine ss judgm e nt , pla int iff m ust produc e e vide nc e t ha t c ould support a finding t ha t t he e m ploye r's de c ision w a s unre a sona ble , or, “so ridde n w it h e rror t ha t de fe nda nt c ould not hone st ly ha ve re lie d upon it .” We x le r, 3 1 7 F.3 d a t 5 7 6 ; Brook s v. Da ve y T re e Ex pe rt Co., 2 0 1 2 WL 1 2 9 3 5 7 8 , * 8 (6 t h Cir. (T e nn.)) (e x pla ining t ha t in de t e rm ining w he t he r an e m ploye r "re a sona bly re lie d on t he pa rt ic ula rize d fa c t s t he n be fore it . . . t he k e y inquiry is w he t he r t he e m ploye r m a de a re a sona bly inform e d a nd c onside re d de c ision be fore t a k ing a n a dve rse e m ploym e nt a c t ion"). 30 T he e vide nc e of re c ord, inc luding t he de posit ion t e st im ony of Dunne a nd M c Ca rt hy, re fle c t s t ha t a ft e r Dunne spok e w it h Sa rva k , U rba n m a de a re a sona bly inform e d a nd c onside re d de c ision in c hoosing a not he r c a ndida t e w it h subst a nt ia l e x pe rie nc e in U rba n’s ow n a c c ount ing syst e m . Pla int iff ha s not show n t ha t U rba n’s de c ision w a s a n unre a sona ble e x e rc ise of busine ss judgm e nt . V I . Conc lusion All t hre e de fe nda nt s a re e nt it le d t o sum m a ry judgm e nt in t he ir fa vor. Pla int iff a ppropria t e ly c onc e de s t ha t Cove nt ry ha d not hing t o do w it h t he e m ploym e nt de c isions a t issue he re . As for DDR, no e vide nc e sugge st s t ha t pla int iff’s a ge , se x , or a ssoc ia t ion w it h disa ble d de pe nde nt s ha d a ny role in he r t e rm ina t ion from DDR. I t is undisput e d t ha t DDR lost t he c ont ra c t t o m a na ge t he T ri-Cit y M a ll, a nd t he re fore , e lim ina t e d a ll posit ions a t t ha t loc a t ion. Pla int iff ha s not point e d t o a ny e vide nc e t ha t she w a s “re pla c e d,” a s he r DDR posit ion no longe r e x ist e d. She w a s not “t re a t e d diffe re nt ly,” a s a ll t he DDR e m ploye e s w e re t e rm ina t e d. V ie w ing t he e vide nc e in t he light m ost fa vora ble t o pla int iff, she ha s not pre se nt e d a prim a fa c ie c a se of a ge , ge nde r, or a ssoc ia t iona l disa bilit y disc rim ina t ion. DDR ha s a rt ic ula t e d le git im a t e , 31 nondisc rim ina t ory re a sons for t e rm ina t ing pla int iff’s e m ploym e nt , w hic h pla int iff ha s fa ile d t o re but . As for U rba n, t he ne w prope rt y m a na ge m e nt c om pa ny c onside re d pla int iff for it s a c c ount ing posit ion but c hose t o hire a be t t e r-qua lifie d a pplic a nt (fe m a le , a ge 5 7 ) w it h e x pe rie nc e in U rba n’s ow n CT I a c c ount ing syst e m . Pla int iff a dm it t e dly ha d not use d t he CT I syst e m . Pla int iff ha s not show n t ha t U rba n’s hiring de c ision w a s a pre t e x t for a ny sort of disc rim ina t ion. V I I . Ora l Argum e nt N ot Wa rra nt e d Loc a l Rule 7 .1 (b)(2 ) provide s t ha t c ourt s ha ve disc re t ion w he t he r t o gra nt re que st s for ora l a rgum e nt . T he pa rt ie s ha ve e x t e nsive ly brie fe d t he re le va nt issue s. DDR oppose s pla int iff’s re que st for ora l a rgum e nt (doc . no. 3 7 a t 4 , fn. 3 ). T he Court finds t ha t t he ple a dings a nd e x hibit s a re c le a r on t he ir fa c e , a nd t ha t ora l a rgum e nt is not w a rra nt e d. Y a m a ha Corp. of Am . v. St one c iphe r’s Ba ldw in Pia nos & Orga ns, 9 7 5 F.2 d 3 0 0 , 3 0 1 -0 2 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 9 2 ); Sc he nt ur v. U nit e d St a t e s, 4 F.3 d 9 9 4 , 1 9 9 3 WL 3 3 0 6 4 0 a t * 1 5 (6 t h Cir. (Ohio)) (obse rving t ha t dist ric t c ourt s m a y dispe nse w it h ora l a rgum e nt on m ot ions for a ny num be r of sound judic ia l re a sons). 32 Ac c ordingly, T he “M ot ion for Sum m a ry J udgm e nt ” (doc . no. 2 3 ) by de fe nda nt DDR is GRAN T ED; t he joint “M ot ion for Sum m a ry J udgm e nt ” (doc . no. 2 6 ) by de fe nda nt s U rba n a nd Cove nt ry is GRAN T ED; pla int iff sha ll be a r t he c ost s of t his a c t ion; t his c a se is DI SM I SSED a nd T ERM I N AT ED on t he doc k e t of t his Court . I T I S SO ORDERED. __________s/H e rm a n J . We be r____ H e rm a n J . We be r, Se nior J udge U nit e d St a t e s Dist ric t Court 33
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
