Williams v. AK STEEL CORP.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan
DecidedMay 31, 2020
Docket2:18-cv-11485
StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. AK STEEL CORP. (Williams v. AK STEEL CORP.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williams v. AK STEEL CORP., (E.D. Mich. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ERIC WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 18-11485 v. HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD AK STEEL CORPORATION, Defendant. ______________________________/ ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#20] I. INTRODUCTION On May 9, 2018, Plaintiff Eric Williams filed a 10-count Complaint alleging that Defendant: (1) harassed and discriminated against him on the basis of his race and skin color, in violation of Title VII and the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”) (Counts I and III); (2) retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of Title VII and ELCRA (Counts II and IV); (3) breached the collective bargaining agreement in

violation of § 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185 et seq. (Counts V and VI); (4) created a hostile workplace environment in violation of Title VII and ELCRA (Counts VII and VIII); (5) negligently trained,

retained, and supervised its employees (Count IX); and (6) intentionally inflicted 1 emotional distress upon Plaintiff (Count X). On April 15, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. [Dkt. No.

20] The Motion has been fully briefed. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the Motion for Summary Judgment. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff was hired by Defendant’s predecessor-in-interest, Rouge Steel Company, on May 30, 1995. His employment with Defendant commenced on September 16, 2014, when Defendant purchased the facility at which Plaintiff worked.

At all relevant times, Plaintiff was represented by UAW Local 600. In June 2012, Plaintiff began working in the PLTCM Roll Shop as an Operating Technician, and one of his jobs was being a material handler. Material handlers have an array of duties, including but not limited to: servicing the mills for roll changes,

building backup rolls, using the hi-lo to service supply trucks, handling the hot dip blind rolls, and servicing the hot strip mill with shims. Dkt. No. 24, Ex. B at 206. Plaintiff indicates that the Operating Technician position included performing

as a roll grinder, which is a distinct position in the roll shop from material handler, as the roll grinder position requires additional training to run certain machines. Id. at 206-207. David Klein (“Klein”), Plaintiff's supervisor, referred to the position in

which one grinds rolls as a “roll turn grinder.” Dkt. No. 24, Ex. C at 11. Klein 2 described the roll turn grinder as a position in which an employee is responsible for “grinding rolls for the mill that meets specifications set forth by the mill.” Id. at 12.

Defendant has claimed that Plaintiff was trained how to grind rolls and subsequently take measurements, as set forth in work instructions. However, as Plaintiff explained at his deposition, “they make everyone sign it before you enter [work]…[b]efore you

go to work, they had these things out on the table and you sign them. So as far as having an actual class for this, no. This is a complete lie.” See Dkt. No. 24, Ex. B at 70-71.

E-mails from Defendant’s representatives show that Plaintiff claimed on multiple occasions that he did not know the proper grinding procedure and that, as of January 27, 2017, at least one of Defendant’s managers (Carlos Brown) did not believe Plaintiff had been properly trained on how to grind rolls. Dkt. No. 24, Ex. D.

Carlos Brown (“Brown”), an African-American who was one of Plaintiff’s supervisors, stated: Tonight I basically suspended Eric Williams[’] right to grind. . . . no one on this shift can work with him. He doesn’t fully know how to change over the machines, he doesn’t truly take pride in grinding, and I don’t think he has been trained properly. So I decided im [sic] not going to allow his lack of care affect the quality of the rolls that we provide to our customer. Not on my watch any longer. Along with his attitude, I don’t think he and several with [sic] others have been properly trained to use the grinders. . . . Dkt. No. 24, Ex. D. Klein wrote in response: “Eric Williams auto response to 3 everything is he has not been properly trained. In all reality he has not properly paid attention.” Id. Klein also wrote, describing Neil Bishop (“Bishop”), a white employee

who had “limited experience” grinding, that “[e]xperience was all he needed.” Id. Plaintiff contends that Klein’s words show that Plaintiff was being treated differently. When Defendant terminated Plaintiff (and as stated in its Motion for Summary

Judgment), Defendant contended that Plaintiff was properly trained as a grinder. Plaintiff admits, and Defendant’s records reflect, that Plaintiff grinded rolls approximately 2-3 times per month out of need due to understaffing. Dkt. No. 24, Ex.

B at 81. Plaintiff sometimes had to operate two machines at once, against Defendant’s standards. Id. at 94. Plaintiff testified that he never received any formal training nor any direct instruction on how to grind rolls, id. at 63; 67; 70-71, and that he routinely informed his supervisors that he was not trained to work the grinding machines and

did not know the proper procedure. Id. at 56-57. Klein became Plaintiff’s supervisor at some point prior to May 25, 2016. Before becoming Plaintiff’s supervisor, a petition was circulated throughout the roll

shop stating that Klein was racist and prejudiced and should not be a supervisor. Dkt. No. 24, Ex. B at 222. Plaintiff signed that petition. On May 25, 2016, Klein accused Plaintiff of a safety violation for not having the proper six-inch barrier between a hot

piece of metal and his hand. Klein either heard something or was already watching 4 Plaintiff from the supervisor’s room about 40-50 feet away when he allegedly noticed Plaintiff touching a suspended load. Dkt. No. 24, Ex. C at 82. Plaintiff denied the

accusation and indicated he was in the proper area at the time, but Klein insisted on writing-up Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that, “[s]hortly thereafter, Plaintiff, fed up with the harassment and dissimilar treatment, reported Dave Klein’s racism, prejudice, and

different treatment of white and black employees to labor relations.” Citing Dkt. No. 24, Ex. B at 116-18. However, when Plaintiff was asked at his deposition if he ever “went to labor relations to complain about Dave Klein?”, he stated that he never went

to labor relations to complain about Klein and only spoke to labor relations to defend himself. Id. On or about June 10, 2016, Plaintiff reported Klein to the union for work on union machines by a non-union employee. Dkt. No. 24, Ex. E. Later that day,

Plaintiff confronted Klein while they were both outside on break, at which time an intense verbal altercation occurred. Plaintiff told Klein that Plaintiff believed Klein was racist and prejudiced and was treating Plaintiff differently from other employees

(something Plaintiff claims he also had done on or about May 25, 2016). Id. Plaintiff testified Klein told Plaintiff to “text Neil that he [Klein] going to work the shit out of us for ratting him [Klein] out.” Dkt. No. 24, Ex. B at 220. Plaintiff testified that the

altercation ended when Klein screamed at Plaintiff, “[n-word], I’m going to get you 5 fired.” Id. Although Plaintiff never complained to management that Klein was racist and prejudiced, Defendant’s management presumably learned of that belief when

Klein emailed his bosses (Jason Dearth and Donald Fowler) Plaintiff’s allegations that Klein: (a) was racist and prejudiced, and (b) treated Plaintiff differently, on May 25, 2016 and June 10, 2016. Id.

Klein acknowledged that he was made aware of allegations regarding racial improprieties, but he did not know the timing of this.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.
510 U.S. 17 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Younis v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc.
610 F.3d 359 (Sixth Circuit, 2010)
Staub v. Proctor Hospital
131 S. Ct. 1186 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Gerald C. Woythal v. Tex-Tenn Corporation
112 F.3d 243 (Sixth Circuit, 1997)
Linda Jackson v. Quanex Corporation
191 F.3d 647 (Sixth Circuit, 1999)
Pram Nguyen v. City of Cleveland
229 F.3d 559 (Sixth Circuit, 2000)
Harold F. Braithwaite v. The Timken Company
258 F.3d 488 (Sixth Circuit, 2001)
Anthony Clayton v. Meijer, Incorporated
281 F.3d 605 (Sixth Circuit, 2002)
Stanley Johnson v. The Kroger Company
319 F.3d 858 (Sixth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Williams v. AK STEEL CORP., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-ak-steel-corp-mied-2020.