WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, Jr., Chief District Judge.
Patti Davis filed this action against her current employer, Cumberland Container Corporation ("Cumberland Container"), alleging violations of federal and state law arising during the course of her employment. (Doc. No. 26-2.)
In August 1993, Cumberland Container hired Davis to work in the assembly department. (Doc. No. 25 at 1.) It later transferred her to the print room, where Davis prepared documents for operators to use and printed load tags for shipping. (
In 2013 and 2014, Cumberland Container had layoffs in all areas of its facility. (Doc. No. 25 at 2.) In 2013, Chris Landers, Davis' General Manager, discussed with Davis the possibility of adding the duty of ordering stock sheets to her existing duties. (Doc. No. 26-3 at 3.) Davis asked if the additional duties would come with a pay raise, to which Landers did not respond. (
In 2014, Cumberland Container decided to consolidate the print room job, material ordering responsibilities, and the "rotary dies." (Doc. No. 25 at 4.) On November 12, 2014, Landers informed Davis that he was transferring her to a different position. (Doc. No. 26-3 at 3-4.) Landers stated that he wanted "a man to do the job" because the rotary dies were heavy. (
Cumberland Container transferred Davis to the assembly and labeling department. (Doc. No. 25 at 4.) Davis' pay, benefits, and hours did not change due to her reassignment. (Doc. No. 25 at 5.) It is disputed whether Davis lost overtime pay, as she has produced some evidence to suggest that she lost approximately $4,000 per year in overtime pay. (Doc. No. 25 at 5; Doc. No. 26-3 at 4.) Cumberland Container contends that it transferred Davis to the assembly and labeling department because it was the department that was least likely to send Davis home for lack of work. (Doc. No. 25 at 6.) Davis states that Cumberland Container sent her home during approximately nine days in 2015. (Doc. No. 26-3 at 4.) Davis also contends that her new position is more strenuous than her previous position because it requires her to lift heavy boxes. (Doc. No. 26-3 at 5.)
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);
Davis brings three claims against Cumberland Container: (1) gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; (2) age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.; and (3) gender discrimination in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act ("THRA"), Tennessee Code Annotated § 4-21-101 et seq. (Doc. No. 26-2.) Cumberland Container moves for summary judgment on all counts, dismissing the Complaint. (Doc. No. 19.)
Cumberland Container moves for summary judgment on Davis' gender and age discrimination claims because it claims Davis has not provided any facts that she suffered an adverse employment action. (Doc. No. 20 at 10.) If Davis did suffer an adverse employment action, Cumberland Container argues that its legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for transferring her was not pretext for gender or age discrimination. (Doc. No. 20 at 13.) Davis argues that she lost overtime pay in her new position, and there is evidence that Cumberland Container's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason is pretextual. (Doc. No. 26 at 7-11.)
As Davis does not contend that there is direct evidence to support her gender and age discrimination claims, the Court analyzes both claims under the familiar burden-shifting test, first recognized in
To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Davis must establish (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was subject to an adverse employment action; (3) she was qualified for the position she held; and (4) she was replaced by someone outside her protected class.
Davis suffered an adverse employment action because her new position had less opportunities to work overtime hours. Denial of overtime can constitute an adverse employment action.
If Davis proves a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to Cumberland Container to allege a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its transfer.
Davis can prove that Cumberland Container's proffered reason is pretextual by showing that the reason "(1) has no basis in fact, (2) did not actually motivate the defendant's challenged conduct, or (3) was insufficient to warrant the challenged conduct."
In the Court's August 18, 2017 Order, the Court directed Davis to address the statute of limitations issue regarding Davis' THRA claims raised by Cumberland Container in prior pleadings. (Doc. No. 31.) Particularly, Cumberland Container argues that Davis' THRA claims are time-barred by the one year statute of limitations in Tennessee Code Annotated § 4-21-311(d). (Doc. No. 39.) Davis argues that her THRA claim is not time-barred because she received discriminatory paychecks will less overtime pay since November 30, 2014, and her working conditions in the Assembly and Label Department are not safe. (Doc. No. 37 at 2-3.)
Tennessee has imposed a one-year statute of limitations to file a civil cause of action under the THRA "after the alleged discriminatory practice ceases." TENN. CODE ANN. § 4-21-311(d). "In stating that a claim must be brought within one year of the time a practice `ceases,' . . . the Legislature incorporated the continuing violation exception into the statute of limitations."
Here, the discrete act of discrimination is transferring Davis to the assembly and labeling department. The decrease in overtime pay is not a disparate pay rate "between similarly situated employees"—Davis presents no evidence that other employees in the assembly and labeling department are receiving more overtime opportunities than her. Instead, the decrease in overtime is merely a "`consequence[ ]' of the allegedly discriminatory decision" to transfer Davis to the assembly and labeling department.
For the foregoing reasons, Cumberland Container's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 19) is
IT IS SO ORDERED.