Mann v. Koch Foods of Ashland LLC

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION: the court GRANTS Koch Foods Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 13). The court will enter a separate order consistent with this memorandum opinion that closes this case. Signed by Judge Corey L Maze on 2/6/2024. (LCB)

FILED
2024 Feb-06 PM 03:18
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
BELINDA MANN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:22-cv-1246-CLM

KOCH FOODS OF ASHLAND
LLC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Belinda Mann (“Mann”) sues Koch Foods of Ashland LLC (“Koch
Foods”) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e,
et seq. (“Title VII”), for demoting her because of her race. (Doc. 1). Koch
Foods moves for summary judgment. (Doc. 13). For the reasons stated
within, the court will GRANT Koch Food’s Motion.
BACKGROUND
The background facts are either undisputed or presented in the
light most favorable to Mann as the nonmoving party. FED. R. CIV. P. 56;
see, e.g., Warrior Tombigbee Transp. Co., Inc. v. M/V Nan Fung 695 F.2d
1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 1983) (“All reasonable doubts about the facts should
be resolved in favor of the non-movant.”).
A. Mann’s Responsibilities
Koch Foods is an integrated poultry processor and manufacturer of
food products with a plant located in Ashland, Alabama. Mann, a Black
woman, began working for Koch Foods in 2007. (Doc. 15 at ¶¶ 1-4). She
was originally hired as a lead person in Koch Food’s “second processing
department” before transitioning into the supervisor assistant role. (Doc.

15 at ¶¶ 3, 13). 1 Throughout most of Mann’s tenure as a supervisor
assistant, Mann’s aunt, Nell Wallace (“Wallace”), was her supervisor.
(Doc. 15 at ¶ 6).
Mann reviewed and signed four Koch Foods’ employment
agreements at the onset of her employment: (1) Koch Foods’ “Lead Person
Duties” form on June 26, 2007, which included a non-exhaustive list of
duties for the role, (doc. 15 at ¶ 8 (citing doc. 14-1 at 97)); (2) Koch Foods’
Rules of Conduct on August 8, 2007, which specifies between Type I and
Type II rules, 2 (see doc. 15 at ¶¶ 10-11 (citing doc. 14-1 at 100-02)); (3)
Koch Foods’ supervisor assistant role form on May 25, 2012, which stated
“Notice: Failure to meet the expectations of a Supervisor Assistant
management support position can result in disqualification.” (see doc. 15
at ¶¶ 16-19 (citing doc. 14-1 at 98)); and (4) Koch Foods’ “Supervisor
Assistant Job Description,” which Koch Foods utilized to provide a nonexhaustive list of requirements for all supervisor assistants in the second
processing department, 3 (doc. 15 at ¶ 16 (citing doc. 14-1 at 99)).
B. Mann’s Record of Discipline
Mann received multiple notices for disciplinary action between 2009
and 2021 arising from these incidents:
• April 2009: Mann screamed at her supervisor, Wallace;
• March 2019: Mann failed to bring her identification badge to
work;

1

Koch Foods personnel, including Jonathan “Chip” Mattox, Day Shift Manager, re-interviewed every lead
person for the supervisor assistant role in order to ensure supervisor assistants understood their new
requirements for the role, which involved complying with requirements outlined in the “General
Requirements” and “Rules of Conduct” documents, and in the updated job description. (Doc. 15 at ¶¶ 14-15).
2
Violating a Type I rule, such as fighting or provoking a fight, is grounds for immediate termination, even on
the first offense. (Doc. 14 at ¶ 10 (citing Doc. 14-1 at 100)). Violating a Type II rule, such as uncivil attitudes
and loud or offensive language and/or behavior, may subject the violator to a progressive disciplinary scheme
or immediate termination. (Doc. 14 at ¶¶ 11-12 (citing Doc. 14-1 at 101)).
3
Some of the requirements listed in the “Supervisor Assistant Job Description” include:
o “Adhere to all plant rules of conduct, policies, and procedures;”
o “Lead by example in; Safety, Communications, Attitude, Quality, and Respect;” and
o “Maintain professional communication with supervision and coworkers.”
(See Doc. 14 at ¶¶ 20-26 (citing Doc. 14-1 at 99)).
2

• June 2020: Mann repeatedly yelled at Amber Sanchez, a general
laborer in processing; Mann also confronted Sanchez by waving
her finger at Sanchez and standing in front of her;
• April 2021: Mann curses at Sequonte Burdette, an hourly
worker.
See Doc. 14-1 at 102 (April 2009 incident), 103 (March 2019 incident); 104
(April 2021 incident); 108-13 (June 2020 incident).
C. Mann’s Demotion
This case stems from the last incident—i.e., Mann calling Sequonte
Burdette a “punk ass bitch” and “fat motherfucker.” (See Doc. 14-1 at 107).
The day after the incident (April 16, 2021), Jonathan “Chip” Mattox
(“Mattox”), Day Shift Manager, and Margaret Benefield (“Benefield”),
Ashland Plant Human Resources Manager, met with Mann about the
incident. (Doc. 15 at ¶ 56 (citing Doc. 14-1 at 18, Dep. 66:6–11)). They told
Mann “that just wasn’t the way that a supervisor assistant should act.”
(Doc. 15 at ¶ 56 (citing Doc. 14-1 at 18, Dep. 66:6–11)). And they removed
Mann from her status as supervisor assistant for violating her signed
responsibilities, particularly the rule of conduct prohibiting “uncivil
attitudes and loud of offensive language and/or behavior.” (Doc. 14-1 at
104).
Koch Foods moved Mann into a production position in the
marination department, where she currently works. (Doc. 15 at ¶ 58
(citing Doc. 14-2 at ¶ 11; Doc. 14-3 at ¶¶ 19, 21); Doc. 14 at ¶ 83 (citing
Doc. 14-1 at 21-22, Dep. 81:22–82:5)). As a manifester, Mann works with
labels that go on the product before leaving the plant. (Doc. 15 at ¶ 87
(citing Doc. 14-1 at 22, Dep. 84:11–17)). Mann has not tried to obtain
another supervisor assistant or lead position, despite knowing such
positions have opened since her demotion, because she “like[s]
manifesting” and wants to maintain her role. (Doc. 15 at ¶ 87 (citing Doc.
14-1 at 22-23, Dep. 85:18–86:1, 87:8–11; 88:2–4); Doc. 15 at ¶ 89 (citing
Doc. 14-1 at 23, Dep. 87:12–19); Doc. 15 at ¶ 90 (citing Doc. 14-1 at 23,
Dep. 87:12–88:4)).

3

STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court views the
facts and draws all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party. See Cuesta v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cty., 285
F.3d 962, 966 (11th Cir. 2002). Summary judgment is appropriate when
there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A genuine
dispute of material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). But where the evidence is
merely colorable or not significantly probative, no genuine dispute of
material fact exists, and summary judgment is appropriate. Id. at 249-50.
Further, if the non-movant responds to the motion for summary judgment
with just conclusory allegations, the court must enter summary judgment
for the movant. Peppers v. Coates, 887 F.2d 1493, 1498 (11th Cir. 1989).
DISCUSSION
I.

Gender Discrimination Claim

To begin, Mann alleged in her complaint that “Koch . . . unlawfully
discriminated against Mann by reason of her race and gender in
violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” (Doc. 1 at ¶ 32) (emphasis
added). But Mann did not exhaust a sex or gender-based claim before the
Equal Employer Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). (See Doc. 14-1 at
116–17). 4 Nor did she make an argument about sex or gender
discrimination in response to Koch Foods’s motion for summary judgment,
relying solely on race instead. (Doc. 17). So the court finds that Mann has
waived any claim that Koch Foods discriminated against her based on sex
or gender. T.R. by and through Brock v. Lamar County Bd. of Educ., 25
F.4th 877, 884-85 (11th Cir. 2022) (because appellant “did not raise this
argument before the district court in her brief in opposition to the

4

A Title VII plaintiff must exhaust certain administrative remedies before filing a suit for employment
discrimination. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e–5. Mann’s Charge of
Discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission states, “I believe I was demoted
because of my race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.” (Doc. 14-1 at 117).
4

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment . . . she waived this argument
below”).
II.

Race Discrimination Claim

The parties present much of their race discrimination arguments
under the well-known, three-step McDonnell Douglas framework—i.e.,
plaintiff’s prima facie case, defendant’s nondiscriminatory reason, and
pretext. But recently, the Eleventh Circuit has signaled a departure from
McDonnell Douglas toward a more basic, Rule 56-based inquiry: Has the
Plaintiff submitted enough evidence to allow a reasonable juror to find
that the Defendant employer acted against Plaintiff because of her race?
See Berry v. Crestwood Healthcare LP, 84 F.4th 1300, 1310 (11th Cir.
2023) (“The legal standard—and the question for the court at summary
judgment—is only whether the evidence permits a reasonable factfinder
to find that the employer retaliated against the employee”); Tynes v. Fla.
Dep’t of Juv. Justice, Case No. 21-13245, 2023 WL 8593114, at *947 (11th
Cir. Dec. 12, 2023) (“This rearticulation of the summary judgment
standard arose in large part because of widespread misunderstandings
about the limits of McDonnell Douglas—the same misunderstandings
that persist today. A ‘convincing mosaic’ of circumstantial evidence is
simply enough evidence for a reasonable factfinder to infer intentional
discrimination in an employment action—the ultimate inquiry in a
discrimination lawsuit.”).
This court will follow suit.
Koch Foods says that the decisionmakers removed Mann from her
role as a supervisor assistant because she called Burdette a “punk ass
bitch” and “fat motherfucker,” action as Koch Foods puts it, was “the very
type of behavior she was expected to prevent.” (Doc. 19 at 7). Koch Food’s
Rules of Conduct and contemporaneous disciplinary notice supports this
nondiscriminatory reason:

5

6

(Doc. 14-1 at 101, 104).
Mann contends that she can prove race discrimination by showing
that Tina Morris, a white supervisor assistant, was not demoted even
though she (a) got into a fight with her sister and (b) engaged in a
romantic relationship with another employee. (See Doc. 17 at ¶ 77). So the
court first outlines the parties’ evidence about Tina Morris, then
determines whether a juror could look at that evidence and reasonably
infer racial discrimination.
A. Mann’s evidence
1. The fight: The parties agree that Tina Morris and her sister Gina
Morris fought in May 2020, the month after Mann was moved out of her
supervisor assistant role. (Doc. 17 at ¶ 99 (citing Doc. 16-1 at 1)).
Koch Foods provides a contemporaneous signed statement of Nell
Wallace—Mann’s supervisor and aunt—that describes the fight like this:

7

(Doc. 14-2 at 19).
Koch Foods also provides Tina Morris’s contemporaneous signed
statement, which similarly states that Gina struck the first two blows to
the back of Tina’s head while Tina was facing her locker. (Doc. 14-2 at 1617). Tina turned around and put Gina in a headlock to get her to stop.
Gina then pulled Tina’s pants down, and when Tina tried to pull them up,
Gina started hitting her again. (Doc. 14-2 at 17). Finally, Gina slammed
Tina’s head into the locker, causing Tina to bleed. (Doc. 14-2 at 17).
Finally, Koch Foods presents Benefield’s declaration. Benefield says
that she relied on Wallace’s statement—i.e., the statement of Mann’s
aunt—to determine that Tina was the victim. (Doc. 14-2 at 19). Koch
Foods thus fired Gina for her behavior and took no action against Tina.
(Doc. 14-2 at 4).
Mann’s sole evidence about the fight is a declaration that gives
Mann’s first-hand account. (Doc. 16-1). In it, Mann describes the
altercation as a “vicious, physical fight” that happened because Gina was
upset because of “the work place bullying that she had to endure from her
assistant supervisor (i.e. her twin sister).” (Doc. 16-1 at 2). But Mann
affirms her aunt’s (Wallace’s) account, saying: “I understand that the
Company believes that my situation is different from that involving Tina
and Gina because Gina beat Tina up. I do not believe it is fair to suggest
that I should have to suffer a beating from the hands of an employee that
I disciplined to keep my job.” (Doc. 16-1 at 3). Mann also affirmed
Wallace’s account at her deposition when she testified that Gina threw
the first punch; Gina was the “aggressor”; and, Gina was “hitting Tina like
a wild person out of control.” (Doc. 14-1 at 36).
2. The Relationship: Mann also claims in her declaration that “Tina
broke the company rules by having a romantic relationship with her coworker” and that the sisters got crossways because Tina’s romantic
partner loaned money to Gina, which Gina did not repay. (Doc. 16-1 at 2).
Mann did not mention this relationship in her EEOC Charge, (doc. 14-1
at 114), or during her deposition, (doc. 14-1 at 1-55).

8

Koch Foods replies with a declaration from Mattox that its
Fraternization Policy does not prohibit co-workers from dating; it only
applies to supervisors or members of management who enter
relationships with someone he or she “directly supervises or whose terms
or conditions of employment he or she may influence.” (Doc. 18-1 at 2-3).
Neither party identifies the alleged paramour nor his position at
Koch Foods. Neither party offers evidence that the decisionmakers
(Benefield and Mattox) knew about Tina’s relationship with a co-worker.
And neither party offers evidence that Mann engaged in a similar
relationship with a co-worker.
B. Comparator Analysis
Mann relies on this comparator evidence to create an inference of
discrimination—i.e., Mann (a black female) and Tina Morris (a white
female) acted similarly but only Mann got demoted, so race must have
played a role in the decision. (See Doc. 17 at ¶ 99 (citing Doc. 16-1 at 1)).
1. Standard of review: To create an inference of discrimination, a
comparator should be “similarly situated in all material respects,” Lewis
v. City of Union City, 918 F.3d 1213, 1178, 1185 (11th Cir. 2019), meaning
that the comparator:
• engaged in the same basic conduct (or misconduct) as the
plaintiff, see, e.g., Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577,
580, 583 (6th Cir. 1992) (holding that a plaintiff terminated
for “misuse of [an employer’s] property” could not rely on
comparators allegedly guilty of “absenteeism” and
“insubordination”);
• was subject to the same employment policy, guideline, or
rule as the plaintiff, see, e.g., Lathem v. Dep’t of Child. And
Youth Servs., 172 F.3d 786, 793 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding
that a plaintiff’s proffered comparators were valid where all
were subject to the same “workplace rules or policies”); and,
• shared the plaintiff’s employment or disciplinary history,
see, e.g., Tennial v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 840 F.3d 292,
9

304 (6th Cir. 2016) (explaining that “[d]ifferences in
experience and disciplinary history” can disqualify a
plaintiff’s proffered comparators).
If Mann cannot show that she is similarly situated to Tina Morris in all
material respects, then evidence about Morris does not raise an inference
of race discrimination that would survive summary judgment. See Lewis,
918 F.3d at 1228-29 (“An employer is well within its rights to accord
different treatment to employees who are differently situated in “material
respects”—e.g., who engaged in different conduct, who were subject to
different policies, or who have different work histories. Finally, the allmaterial-respects standard serves the interest of sound judicial
administration by allowing for summary judgment in appropriate cases–
namely, where the comparators are simply too dissimilar to permit a valid
inference that invidious discrimination is afoot.”).
2. The fight: Tina Morris defending herself against her sister’s
attack is not similar to Mann calling Burdette a “punk ass bitch” and “fat
motherfucker.” Both parties’ evidence—including eyewitness accounts
from Mann and her aunt (Wallace)—paints Tina Morris as the victim of
Gina’s attack, and any actions that Tina took (physical or verbal) stemmed
from being hit in the head and ultimately slammed into a locker by her
sister. There is no evidence that Burdette physically accosted Mann before
she yelled at him. Therefore, evidence about the Morris sisters’ fight
cannot raise an inference that the decision makers removed Mann but not
Morris as a supervisor assistant because of their race.
3. The relationship: Because Mann is the non-moving party, the
court will assume that Tina Morris was engaged in a romantic
relationship with an unnamed co-worker. But Mann offers no evidence
that Morris supervised the unnamed person, so there is no evidence that
Mann broke company policy. Nor does Mann offer evidence that the
decisionmakers knew about the relationship. Nor does she offer evidence
that she (Mann) was engaged in a similar relationship that the decision
makers knew about. In short, Mann presents insufficient evidence to
allow a jury to find that Mann and Tina Morris were engaged in violative
relationships but only Mann was demoted, thus raising an inference of
10

race discrimination. Without that evidence, Tina Morris’s alleged
relationship is irrelevant to Mann’s claim.
—
In sum, Mann fails to show that she is similarly-situated to Tina
Morris in all material respects. So Mann’s evidence about Morris fails to
raise an adequate inference of race discrimination to survive summary
judgment. Because Mann offers no other evidence that would allow a
reasonable juror to find that the decisionmakers (Benefield and Mattox)
considered Mann’s race when they disqualified her from continuing as a
supervisor assistant, Mann cannot prove her race discrimination claim
under a single- or mixed-motive theory of discrimination.
CONCLUSION
Because Mann fails to offer evidence that would allow a reasonable
juror to find that Koch Foods engaged in race discrimination, the court
GRANTS Koch Foods’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 13). The
court will enter a separate order consistent with this memorandum
opinion that closes this case.
DONE and ORDERED on February 6, 2024.

_________________________________
COREY L. MAZE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11