Race v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
Filing
47
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Defendant's motion for summary judgment 31 be, and is hereby, GRANTED IN PART as to plaintiff's race discrimination claims and DENIED IN PART as to plaintiff's retaliation claim; and (2 ) The parties shall file a status report on or before February 14, 2022 advising the Court whether they were able to resolve this matter and, if not, when they anticipate being ready for trial. Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 1/21/2022.(ECO)cc: COR
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 1 of 20 - Page ID#: 1051
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:18-CV-094-(WOB-CJS)
MICHELLE RACE
PLAINTIFF
VS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DELTA AIRLINES, INC.
DEFENDANT
This employment discrimination case is before the Court on
defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 31).
The Court heard oral argument on this motion on Friday,
January 14, 2022. Kash Stilz represented the plaintiff, and Richard
Moore represented the defendant. Also present was Alesha Hamilton,
an attorney from Mr. Moore’s firm who was present to observe the
hearing. Court reporter Lisa Wiesman recorded the proceedings.
Having heard the parties, the Court now issues the following
Memorandum Opinion and Order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A.
Race’s Delta Employment
Michelle Race, who is Caucasian, was hired by Delta in 2010
when her former employer, Comair, ceased operating. (Race Depo. I,
Doc.
76,
at
34,
46).1
She
was
employed
at
Delta
at
the
Race was deposed on three occasions: October 11, 2016 (Doc. 38),
October 27, 2016 (Doc. 38), and August 15, 2019 (Doc. 34). The
first two sittings are referred to collectively as “Depo. I” and
the third sitting is referred to as “Depo. II.”
1
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 2 of 20 - Page ID#: 1052
Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky
International
Airport
(“CVG”)
in
Dept. 120 as a Ready-Reserve employee.2 As such, Race worked parttime and received unlimited employee flight privileges, including
“companion” passes which are issued only to domestic partners.
These travel privileges are considered the biggest benefit of the
Ready Reserve position. (Race Depo. I at 34-35).
Since 2011, Race has been in a romantic relationship with a
former co-worker, Brandon Freeman, who is African-American. (Race
Depo. I, Doc. 38 at 10, 86-88).
By way of background, in the fall of 2013, Delta management
received anonymous complaints from other employees that Freeman
was verbally and physically abusing Race at work. Delta began an
investigation into the allegations.
Race testified that on September 25, 2013, she was called
into a meeting with Chuck Jones, Department Manager, and Greg Kuhn,
the
Regional
Corporate
Security
Manager
covering
CVG.
These
managers told Race that they had received complaints that Freeman
was mistreating her. (Depo. I at 50-51, 78). Kuhn asked Race if
she was in a relationship with Freeman and whether it was sexual,
and Race told him yes. (Depo. I at 50-51). Kuhn also asked her how
her family felt about her dating a black man, and Race told him
Plaintiff took leave from Delta in October 2018 due to a nonwork-related injury. (Race Depo. III, Doc. 34, at 9). Her counsel
informed the Court during the above hearing that plaintiff
voluntarily retired from Delta in October 2021.
2
2
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 3 of 20 - Page ID#: 1053
that her family liked Freeman. Race testified that she told them
that Freeman had not threatened her, that she was not afraid of
him, and that he did not bully her. (Depo. I at 79).
Race
subsequently gave conflicting statements about the allegations,
but ultimately denied any mistreatment by Freeman, so Delta closed
its investigation.
In April 2014, Delta terminated Freeman’s employment due to
his violation of Delta’s pass travel policies.
Race filed a charge with the EEOC on September 26, 2014
alleging
that
she
African-American
had
witnessed
employees
and
Delta
that
she
discriminate
too
had
against
experienced
harassment and retaliation. (Doc. 34 at 100-04). Race did not,
however, file suit after receiving a Notice of Right to Sue, and
she thus concedes in her response to Delta’s motion for summary
judgment that she cannot pursue those claims for racial harassment.
(Doc. 39 at 12-13).
In November 2014, Race submitted to Delta an “Affidavit of
Opposite Sex Domestic Partnership,” listing Brandon Freeman as her
domestic
partner
for
the
purpose
of
obtaining
pass
travel
privileges for him. (Doc. 34 at 106-7). This affidavit swore, inter
alia, that Race and Freeman were not married or in a domestic
partnership with any other person; that they “reside[d] together
in the same permanent residence and have lived in a ‘spouse-like’
relationship for at least six continuous months; and that they
3
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 4 of 20 - Page ID#: 1054
were financially interdependent. (Id.). The affidavit stated that
the
employee
was
required
to
inform
Delta
if
the
domestic
partnership terminated or changed such it no longer met the
requirements of the affidavit. (Id.).
B.
The Freeman Litigation and Subsequent Events
Brandon Freeman and five other Delta employees filed a lawsuit
in this Court on September 3, 2015. Freeman v. Delta Air Lines,
Inc., Case No. 15cv160. They alleged that Delta discriminated
against
them
on
the
basis
of
race
in
discipline
and
work
assignments.
Freeman was deposed on September 29, 2016.
(Doc. 45) He
testified that he and Race were not currently in a romantic
relationship, but they had previously been in an “on-again/offagain” relationship; that they each owned their own home and did
not make mortgage or utility payments on the other’s house; that
they stayed at the other’s home frequently and kept personal
belongings there; that he had a one-year old daughter by another
woman during his relationship with Race, and that he had been in
a relationship with that woman for about a year and a half; that
Race was helping him raise that child; that they had not given
each other money in the last three months; and that they had a
joint bank account with about $50 in it. Id. at 8-13, 192-197.
Delta
also
took
Race’s
deposition
during
the
Freeman
litigation. (Doc. 38). During her deposition in October 2016, Race
4
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 5 of 20 - Page ID#: 1055
testified that:
•
She and Freeman had been in an “off and on” relationship
for a couple of years, and it was sometimes “off” for
months. They often did not speak at all when the
relationship was “off.” (Id. at 10, 87, 204-05);
•
Freeman was her “best friend,” that they had sex, but they
had not done so for two months. (Id. at 16-17);
•
She did not know that Freeman had been having a
relationship with the mother of his one-year-old child and
it did not bother her. (Id. at 37, 203);
•
She and Freeman owned separate houses, and they did not
pay any expenses associated with the other’s home. (Id. at
117-18);
•
She and Freeman had a joint bank account to save money for
Christmas, but their paychecks were deposited into
separate, non-joint accounts, and Freeman had not made any
deposit into the joint account within the last six months
(Id. at 118-21, 195, 292-93). At the time of Race’s
deposition, there was approximately $18 in the joint
account; and
•
She and Freeman owned no other joint assets. (Id. at 29394.).
Delta states that after these depositions, it determined that
the requirements for Freeman to hold privileges as Race’s domestic
partner were not met, and so it placed Race on a final corrective
action notice effective December 17, 2016. (Doc. 34 at 111-29).
This notice stated, in part:
During recent depositions in a legal matter
involving Mr. Freeman, Mr. Freeman identified his
residence as an address different from yours. He
also testified that his relationship with you is
“on again and off again” and that the two of you
had been “taking a break during the last three
months. As part of this same proceeding, you
5
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 6 of 20 - Page ID#: 1056
claimed under oath that you and Freeman had lived
together “on and off” for a couple of years but
admitted that you have always maintained separate
residences for which you each pay your own
expenses, both before and after the date of your
Affidavit. Furthermore, your only evidence of
financial interdependence is a joint checking
account that you share with Mr. Freeman. You
described that account as a “Christmas Fund” and a
review of the bank statements you produced
demonstrate the account has never had a balance in
excess of $100. These facts, as we as other
testimony from you and Mr. Freeman regarding other
romantic relationships and the birth of his child
raise serious questions about the veracity of your
certification that the two of you have lived in a
spouse-like relationship.
Michelle, a review of these facts including the
documentation you have provided has caused us to
conclude that you and Mr. Freeman do not meet the
requirements of a Domestic Partnership.
(Doc. 34 at 112).
This notice was communicated to Race by her supervisor, Matt
Arlinghaus. He told Race that he had simply received an email
containing the discipline notice and was told to read it to her,
but
that
he
otherwise
knew
nothing
about
the
situation
and
apologized to her for it, asking her not to be mad at him. (Doc.
34 at 105-06). Race also testified that no one at Delta had
questioned her about the matter before this time. (Doc. 34 at 106).
Freeman
was
thereafter
removed
from
Race’s
pass
travel
benefits, her own flight privileges were suspended for two years,
and she was made ineligible for two years for transfer, promotion,
or special assignment outside of the department. (Id.).
6
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 7 of 20 - Page ID#: 1057
Race promptly contacted Matthew Morrison in Delta’s Human
Resources department, explaining in detail the nature of her and
Freeman’s relationship in an email dated January 6, 2017. It bears
quoting at length:
Matt yes I would like to meet with you. I still don’t
understand how things that was [sic] answered in our
depositions have been twisted and turned into this. I don’t
understand how I can be punished because of the fact that we
own 2 houses. Brandon has went [sic] through a bankruptcy and
financial restructure and isn’t allowed to sell or rent his
property for years. And he has money that comes out of his
account automatically for other payments to places that was
agreed upon in his [bankruptcy]. So we have no choice but to
keep Brandon’s property until the terms of his bankruptcy is
over. At that time we plan on selling it. The motorcycles are
2 major purchases that we have made together and sharing the
monthly responsibility of the payments and insurance that we
have required because it is a[n] enjoyment that we share
together. I don’t understand how we don’t have a spouse like
relationship. We live together, and we have a child that we
are raising together. My home is the only home that she knows.
Everything that she owns is at my home. I might not have gave
[sic] birth to her, but I couldn’t love her any more if I
would have. Brandon has full custody of her and she has never
seen her Mother and never will. I take care of her when
Brandon is working and my Mother watches her when we both
work. My parents treat her just like one of their
Grandchildren. Me and Brandon live together, shop together,
have all meals together, sleep in the same bed together. We
make sure to pay all of our bills, no we don’t usually have
a lot of money in our account together. Money goes in each
and every month but it goes out also. By the time that all my
bills are paid and all his bills are paid and we have bought
everything the baby needs each week we never have any money
left over. I love Brandon and would never want to be with
anyone else. Brandon feels the same about me. Yes he cheated
one time. We have been working on trusting again. But we are
working on it together. You make it sound like because Brandon
said our intimate/sexual relationship was on again/off again,
because of the fact that it is hard working through the fact
that not only did Brandon cheat one time, but that one time
7
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 8 of 20 - Page ID#: 1058
he did, he had a baby by that person. So I believe this would
be hard for anyone to work through. . . . But we have managed
to stay together 6 years, and we plan on staying together the
rest of our life. I wouldn’t want to be with anyone else. .
. . We are a couple in a committed relationship with each
other and a child together. I have asked pretty many people
so far at work that are just living with someone how much
money they have together in their bank account and most of
them have said their accounts are separate that they don’t
even have an account together. So I’m not really sure on the
amount of money that is expected from an average couple to
keep, I never saw a dollar amount in the policy. I wasn’t
aware we had to keep a certain amount. We do share monthly
bills together and monthly expenses. We share all the grocery
bills together, any store items we use each day for laundry,
personal care, eating out, all that expense is shared
together, and we are raising a healthy and happy baby
together, and we are only committed to each other, how can we
be discriminated against, and me be punished for it. Please
let me know when you will be available to meet.
(Doc. 34 at 114-18).
It does not appear that Morrison substantively responded to
this email and, when he was unable to meet with Race, he told her
that she could appeal the discipline to Brian San Souci, Delta’s
Manager of Equal Opportunity and Pass Protection. (Doc. 34 at 114).
In the meantime, Race filed another Charge of Discrimination
with the EEOC on February 27, 2017 alleging, in part, that the
Final Corrective Action constituted unlawful retaliation for her
deposition testimony in the Freeman matter. (Doc. 34 at 119-21).
In the summer of 2017, Race contacted San Souci to ask for a
copy of the Final Corrective Notice which she had been given. (Doc.
34 at 129). San Souci sent Race a copy of that document by email
on June 29, 2017. (Id. at 128).
8
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 9 of 20 - Page ID#: 1059
By email to San Souci on July 17, 2017, Race explained that
this was the first time that she had had the chance to closely
review her writeup, and she explained at length why she and Freeman
at all times qualified for the domestic partner privileges. She
also emphasized that she had never been given the opportunity to
address Delta’s concerns about the status of their relationship.
(Doc. 34 at 127-28). Race stated that she felt that Delta’s actions
were retaliation for her having testified in the Freeman matter,
and she asked him to let her know what was being done to investigate
the situation. (Id.).
Three days later, San Souci sent Race an email informing her
that the discipline was being upheld. (Doc. 34 at 126). San Souci
first noted that Freeman should never have qualified for any pass
privileges since he had been terminated from Delta for a pass
violation. (Id. at 126). Souci reiterated, however, that the
discipline was being upheld based on the facts to which Race and
Freeman testified in their depositions. (Id.). San Souci made no
mention of the information that Race had provided regarding the
details of her relationship with Freeman.
Race’s flight privileges were restored in December 2018.
(Race Depo. II at 15). However, Race went on leave from Delta in
October 2108 due to a non-work-related injury. (Doc. 34 at 174).
C.
This Lawsuit
Race filed this lawsuit on June 6, 2018, alleging claims for
9
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 10 of 20 - Page ID#:
1060
race discrimination under Title VII and Section 1981, racial
harassment under Title VII (this claim has been withdrawn), and
retaliation under Title VII and KRS 344.280. (Doc. 1).
Analysis
A. Race Discrimination
To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, Race
must show that:
was
subjected
qualified
for
(1) she is a member of a protected group, (2) she
to
her
an
adverse
position,
employment
and
(4)
action,
similarly
(3)
she
situated
was
non-
protected employees were treated more favorably. Smith v. City of
Toledo, 13 F.4th 508, 515 (6th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).
If Race establishes such a prima facie case, the burden shifts
to defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
for its decision. Id. “The burden then shifts back to [plaintiff]
to show that the reason the employer gave was not its true reason,
but merely a pretext for discrimination.” Id. (internal quotations
and citation omitted).
Here, Delta concedes that Race can establish that she was
qualified and that she was a member of a protected group, because
she alleges that she was discriminated against based on her
association with a person of another race, Brandon Freeman. (Doc.
31 at 4 n.1.). See Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp., 556 F.3d 502, 511
(6th Cir. 2009) (noting that both Title VII and Section 1981 forbid
10
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 11 of 20 - Page ID#:
1061
discrimination on the basis of association with or advocacy for a
protected party).
Delta argues, however, that Race cannot show that she suffered
an adverse employment action or that any similarly situated nonprotected employee was treated more favorably.
1.
Adverse Employment Action
Race has abandoned any claim premised on numerous incidents
she originally alleged in her complaint, but she pursues her claim
for discrimination based on the Final Corrective Notice that Delta
issued to her in December 2016. (Doc. 39 at 13-14).
For purposes of the prima facie case, “adverse employment
actions are typically marked by a ‘significant change in employment
status,’
including
‘hiring,
firing,
failing
to
promote,
reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a
decision causing a significant change in benefits.’” O’Donnell v.
Univ. Hosp. Cleveland Med. Ctr., 833 F. App’x 605, 620 (6th Cir.
2020) (citation omitted).
The Final Corrective Notice that Delta issued to Race in
December 2016 caused a sufficiently negative impact on the terms
of her employment to constitute an adverse employment action. That
discipline not only removed Freeman from her pass privileges, but
it suspended all of her own pass travel privileges for two years.
It is not disputed that the unlimited travel privilege afforded
Ready Reserve employees such as Race was a large component of their
11
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 12 of 20 - Page ID#:
1062
compensation and considered the main attraction of the job. (Race
Depo. I at 34-35).
In addition, Race testified that prior to this discipline,
she had applied for and been offered a position in the Sky Club,
which would have given her more hours. However, that offer was
rescinded after she received the Final Corrective Action. (Race
Depo. II at 25-27, 46).
In addition, the discipline rendered Race ineligible for
raises, promotions, or transfers outside of her department for the
same two-year period. (Race Depo. II at 27; Doc. 34 at 112).
For these reasons, the Final Corrective Action caused a
materially
adverse
change
on
Race’s
employment
such
that
it
constitutes an adverse employment action.
2.
Similarly Situated Employees
Although Race suffered an adverse employment action, her
disparate treatment claim fails at the prima facie stage because
she has not shown that any similarly situated employee outside the
protected class (i.e., not in a relationship or closely associated
with a person in a protected class) was treated more favorably.
Race conceded at oral argument that she cannot satisfy this
showing, and the Court thus need not discuss it further.
B. Retaliation
In order to state a prima facie case of retaliation under
Title VII, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) she engaged in a
12
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 13 of 20 - Page ID#:
1063
protected
activity,
(2)
the
employer
knew
of
the
protected
activity, (3) the employer took adverse employment action against
the plaintiff, and (4) there was a causal connection between the
protected activity and the adverse employment action. Wyatt v.
Nissan North Am., Inc., 999 F.3d 400, 419 (6th Cir. 2021) (citation
omitted).
“In the retaliation context, the term ‘adverse employment
action’ encompasses more than just actions that affect ‘the terms,
conditions or status of employment.’” Id. Rather, it “includes any
conduct ‘that would have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making
or supporting a charge of discrimination.’” Id.
The Sixth Circuit has also noted that “the plaintiff’s burden
at the prima facie stage is minimal and easily met.” Id. (internal
quotations and citation omitted).
As with discrimination claims, once a plaintiff establishes
a prima facie case of retaliation, the defendant must produce a
nonretaliatory reason for its action, and the plaintiff then must
show that a reasonable person could find that reason to be a
pretext for retaliation. Id. at 419-20.
“Plaintiffs
ordinarily
show
pretext
by
showing
that
the
proferred reason [] (1) had no basis in fact; (2) was insufficient
motivation for the employment action; or (3) did not actually
motivate
the
adverse
employment
13
action.”
Briggs
v.
Univ.
of
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 14 of 20 - Page ID#:
1064
Cincinnati, 11 F.4th 498, 515 (6th Cir. 2021) (internal quotations
and citations omitted).
It is not disputed that plaintiff engaged in a protected
activity of which Delta was aware: her deposition testimony in the
Freeman matter. And, as discussed above, the Final Corrective
Notice upon which Race bases her retaliation claim constitutes an
adverse employment action, particularly under the relaxed standard
applicable to retaliation claims.
Finally, Race has established the prima facie element of
causation based on temporal proximity because she received the
Final Corrective Action less than two months after she completed
her deposition in October 2016. See Wyatt, 999 F.3d at 424-25 (“The
close
temporal
proximity
of
Wyatt’s
protected
activities
to
Nissan’s adverse actions by themselves may suffice to establish a
causal connection.”). Race has thus established a prima facie case
of retaliation.
Delta argues in its motion for summary judgment that Race
cannot show that Delta’s proffered reason for issuing the Final
Corrective Action—its belief that Race had improperly claimed
domestic partner travel benefits for Freeman—was a pretext for
retaliation.
Plaintiff invokes the third means of showing pretext: that
Delta’s
stated
reason,
while
perhaps
sufficient
to
take
the
challenged action, did not actually motivate its action. Id. at
14
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 15 of 20 - Page ID#:
1065
425. In such a situation, the plaintiff can prove pretext by
arguing “that the sheer weight of the circumstantial evidence”
makes it “more likely than not” that the employer’s explanation is
pretextual. Id. (citing Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 29
F.3d 1078, 1084 (6th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by
Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009)).
And, although temporal proximity alone cannot be the basis
for finding pretext, “it can be a strong indicator of pretext when
accompanied by some other, independent evidence.” Briggs, 11 F.4th
at 516 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Race, a
reasonable jury could find that Delta’s stated reason for issuing
the Final Corrective Action to Race in December 2016 was a pretext
for retaliation against her for testifying in the Freeman matter.
A variety of undisputed facts lead to this conclusion.
First,
while
Freeman’s
deposition
testimony
about
his
relationship with Race was cited by Delta as part of the reason
for disciplining Race, there is no evidence that Delta began
investigating the matter after Freeman’s deposition. Rather, Delta
apparently did not begin an “investigation” until after Race gave
two
days
of
deposition
testimony
in
support
of
the
Freeman
plaintiffs, a month later.
Second, while Delta invokes the familiar “honest belief”
defense to argue that even if it was incorrect about the nature of
15
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 16 of 20 - Page ID#:
1066
Race and Freeman’s relationship, its decision based on their
deposition testimony cannot be shown to be retaliatory. Delta is
incorrect.
First, the honest belief defense is meant to rebut a showing
of pretext under the first prong, i.e., that the proferred reason
had no basis in fact. See Briggs, 11 F.4th at 515. But Race is not
proceeding under that prong of the pretext inquiry. Nor could she
because
there
is
no
dispute
that
she
and
Freeman
gave
the
deposition testimony in question.
Instead, Race is proceeding under the third prong of the
pretext analysis: that Delta’s proferred reason did not actually
motivate its decision to discipline her. (Doc. 39 at 17). As such,
the honest belief defense is inapplicable. Id.; see also Wyatt,
999 F.3d at 425 (“However, Nissan cannot enjoy the protection of
the ‘honest belief’ rule if Wyatt demonstrates pretext by showing
that even if Davis held concerns about her performance, those
concerns did not actually motivate Davis to issue the negative
performance evaluations.”).
Even if the defense were applicable, Delta would not be
entitled to summary judgment. The honest belief defense is not
available where the employer failed to make a reasonably informed
and
considered
decision
before
taking
its
adverse
employment
action. Babb v. Maryville Anesthesiologists P.C., 942 F.3d 308,
323 (6th Cir. 2019).
16
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 17 of 20 - Page ID#:
1067
Here, the record demonstrates that Delta used plaintiff’s
deposition
to
elicit
information
about
her
relationship
with
Freeman, which was not even relevant to the claims in the Freeman
matter. Delta went so far as to insist on a second sitting so that
it could subpoena Race’s bank records and then question her about
them during the deposition.
Then,
less
than
two
months
after
the
deposition,
Delta
disciplined Race, stripping her of her valued flight privileges
for two years and rendering her ineligible for raises, promotions,
or transfers, without even giving her the opportunity to address
their concerns. The supervisor who was instructed to give her the
notice had no idea why it was being issued. A reasonable jury could
conclude from this that, essentially, Delta used Race’s deposition
as an opportunity to lay a foundation to take an adverse action
against her.
Additional evidence calls Delta’s motivation into question.
After receiving the Final Corrective Action, Race immediately
reached out to Human Resources with an impassioned explanation of
the full details of her relationship with Freeman in order to place
their deposition testimony in context and to demonstrate that they
were, in fact, in a spouse-like relationship. Neither Matthew
Morrison nor Brian San Souci appears to have even acknowledged the
information Race provided, even though she implored them to meet
with her so that she could discuss it in person. In fact, San
17
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 18 of 20 - Page ID#:
1068
Souci’s
final
email
affirming
the
discipline
does
not
even
acknowledge the information Race provided or explain whether or
how Delta took it into consideration.
This is strong evidence from which a reasonable jury could
infer
that
Delta’s
proffered
justification
did
not
actually
motivate its decision to discipline Race. See, e.g. Yazdian v.
Conmed Endoscopic Tech., Inc., 793 F.3d 634, 653-54 (6th Cir. 2015)
(rejecting honest belief defense and finding a triable issue of
pretext where employer based its discipline solely on supervisor’s
statement and it did not interview plaintiff despite him telling
management that he wanted an opportunity to present his side of
the story). Cf. Nathan v. Great Lakes Water Authority, 992 F.3d
557, 572 (6th Cir. 2021) (affirming grant of summary judgment on
retaliation
claims;
employer
had
honest
belief
that
employee
falsified a report and it attempted to get her side of the story,
but she refused to make a statement).
In fact, although Delta repeatedly asserts that it conducted
an “investigation” into the matter, the record contains no such
evidence. Delta’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Josh Jessup, had no
personal knowledge of how Delta reached the decision to discipline
Race or even who made the decision. (Jessup Depo., Doc. 33, at 2223).
Oddly,
Delta
never
states
in
its
briefing
who
the
decisionmaker was.
And, while Delta cites Jessup’s deposition for its assertion
18
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 19 of 20 - Page ID#:
1069
that
“Delta
consistently
takes
disciplinary
action
against
employees who provide inaccurate information in the application
for domestic partner flight benefits,” (Doc. 31 at 15), his
testimony says nothing of the sort. Jessup merely stated that Delta
does not do regular audits of those using domestic partner flight
privileges, and that if something was brought to their attention,
“we’ll investigate that.” (Doc. 33 at 18).
Finally, the fact that San Souci lastly asserted that Freeman
should never have been granted domestic partner flight privileges
in the first place suggests that Delta went beyond its original
asserted justification—Race and Freeman’s deposition testimony—in
order to affirm its decision.
In sum, viewing the evidence in Race’s favor, a reasonable
jury could find that Delta’s handling of this entire situation,
particularly its refusal to consider Race’s explanation and its
lack of transparency regarding how the matter was “investigated”
and who made the decision, suggests that its proferred reason did
not actually motivate its decision to discipline Race. Instead, a
jury could find that Delta disciplined Race as a direct means of
retaliating against her for testifying in the Freeman case.
Delta’s motion for summary judgment on Race’s retaliation
claim will thus be denied.
19
Case: 2:18-cv-00094-WOB-CJS Doc #: 47 Filed: 01/21/22 Page: 20 of 20 - Page ID#:
1070
Therefore, having heard the parties, and the Court being
advised,
IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 31) be, and
is hereby, GRANTED IN PART as to plaintiff’s race discrimination
claims and DENIED IN PART as to plaintiff’s retaliation claim; and
(2) The parties shall file a status report on or before
February 14, 2022 advising the Court whether they were able to
resolve this matter and, if not, when they anticipate being ready
for trial.
This 21st day of January 2022.
20
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?