United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
MICHAEL P. SHEA, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiff
John Polk filed this action against the Sherwin-Williams
Company (“Sherwin-Williams”), his former
employer, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.,
and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act
(“CFEPA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60 et seq.
Polk was the manager of a Sherwin-Williams store in East
Hartford, Connecticut, until he was terminated on February
24, 2015. He alleges that Sherwin-Williams discriminated
against him because of his race and retaliated against him
after he filed an internal complaint about harassment.
Sherwin-Williams has moved for summary judgment, arguing,
among other things, that Polk has submitted no evidence from
which a reasonable jury could find (1) that his employment
was terminated under circumstances giving rise to an
inference of discrimination or retaliation, or (2) that
Sherwin-Williams's neutral, non-discriminatory and
non-retaliatory explanation for his termination was
pretextual. (ECF No. 60.) For the reasons set forth below,
the motion is GRANTED.
I.
Undisputed Facts
The
following facts are taken from the parties' Local Rule
56(a) statements and are undisputed unless otherwise
noted.[1] Additional disputed facts are incorporated
as relevant in Section III below.
A.
Polk's Employment with Sherwin-Williams
Polk,
an African American man, began working for Sherwin-Williams
in July of 2003 at one of the company's retail
floorcovering stores in Somerset, New Jersey. (56(a)1 Stmt.
¶ 1, 3; 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 1, 3.) In February of 2005,
Polk was promoted to the position of Branch Manager at a
Sherwin-Williams location in Wethersfield, Connecticut.
(Complaint, ECF No. 1 ¶ 7; Answer, ECF No. 28 ¶ 7).
He eventually became the Store/Branch Manager of the
company's East Hartford, Connecticut floorcoverings
store. (56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 2; 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 2.) In
2015, there were three employees at the East Hartford
location in addition to Polk: Assistant/Operations Manager
Basil Moody, part time warehouse employee Jonathan Trapp, and
Sales Representative Ahmed Saleh. (56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 4-5;
56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 4-5.) Moody and Trapp reported directly
to Polk, while Saleh reported directly to Sales Manager Rich
Gabe, who worked out of a different location. (56(a)1 Stmt.
¶ 5, 8; 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 5, 8.) Polk reported
directly to District Manager Joseph Detreux. (Polk
Deposition, ECF No. 60-4 at 21; see also Detreux Declaration,
ECF No. 60-7 ¶ 2.)
B.
March 2013 Warning and Polk's Harassment
Complaint
On
March 4, 2013, [2] Detreux issued Polk a formal warning
letter related to Polk's interactions with Saleh and a
series of customer service issues. (56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 14;
56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 14; March 4 Warning Letter, ECF No. 60-7
at 33-34.) Polk acknowledges that he received the letter but
denies that there was any basis for Detreux to issue him a
warning at that time. (56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 14.) The letter
recounted issues purportedly discussed at a meeting on
February 20 involving Detreux, Polk, and two other
Sherwin-Williams human resources employees. (ECF No. 60-7 at
33.) The letter also attached the Sherwin-Williams
non-harassment policy and described strategies for
interacting with people in the workplace. (Id. at
34-35.) It noted that failure to exhibit “immediate and
sustained improvement” in communication could
“result in further disciplinary action up to and
including termination.” (Id. at 35.)
On
March 8, 2013, Polk filed a harassment complaint against
Detreux and Saleh. (56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 15-16; 56(2) Stmt.
¶ 15-16; see Harassment Complaint, ECF No. 60-6
at 51-53.) The complaint asserted that Detreux and Saleh
“constantly harass[ed]” him and
“indicat[ed] that [he was] a difficult person to work
with resulting in a corrective action for [Polk] with a
possible termination.” (ECF No. 60-6 at 52.) The
parties agree that Sherwin-Williams investigated the
complaint but dispute the details of the investigation.
(56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 17; 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 17.)
Sherwin-Williams
asserts that the investigation was conducted by Area Human
Resources Manager Michelle Fischman-Levy, who completed
interviews with Polk, Saleh, Detreux, and Sales Manager Gabe.
(56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 17-18; Fischman-Levy Declaration, ECF
No. 60-7 at 49.) After the investigation, Fischman-Levy
issued Polk a letter summarizing her findings. (Fischman-Levy
Letter, ECF No. 60-7 at 57.) She stated that Detreux's
March 4, 2013 warning letter regarding customer service
issues, as well as an August 2012 warning letter by Detreux
about inventory issues, were “justified.” (ECF
No. 60-7 at 57.) She also explained that she “found no
evidence of behavior that [was] in violation of the
Company's EEO and Non-Harassment Policies.”
(Id.) Sherwin-Williams produced a sworn declaration
by Fischman-Levy in which she asserts that, throughout her
investigation, Polk never stated that “he believed he
was being harassed because of his race, or otherwise
discriminated against because of his race . . . .”
(Fischman-Levy Declaration, ECF No. 60-7 at 49.)
Polk
contends that he sent his complaint to Don Katen, the Vice
President of Human Resources for his region. (Plaintiff's
L.R. 56(a)2 Statement Part B (“56(a)2 Stmt. B”),
ECF No. 62 ¶ 8; ECF No. 60-4 at 46-47.) Katen initially
called Polk about the complaint but did not follow up
further. (Id.) Polk asserts that another
Sherwin-Williams human resources representative, Billy
Fowler, participated in the investigation together with
Fischman-Levy. (56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 17; Polk Affidavit, ECF
No. 63 at 4.) He argues that Fischman-Levy “completely
discounted [his] statements to her and she made no reference
to Billy Fowler who was the primary investigator”
responsible for interviewing Polk and his colleagues at the
East Hartford store. (56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 21.) He asserts
that he told Fowler that Detreux “appl[ied] different
criteria to [his] work performance than other store managers
in the region.” (Polk Affidavit, ECF No. 63 at 5.)
C.
Other Customer Service Complaints Involving Polk
In May
of 2013, Detreux sent Polk a letter in connection with his
annual performance review. (56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 11; 56(a)2
Stmt. ¶ 12.) The letter summarized Detreux's
conversation with one of Polk's customers, who reportedly
described Polk as “very difficult to work with”
and stated that he “talk[ed] down to customers.”
(ECF No. 60-7 at 39.) The letter advised Polk to make an
effort to provide “Trademark Customer Service in both
your words and actions at all times.” (ECF No. 60-7 at
40.) Polk notes that he nevertheless received a raise of more
than 7% following his review. (56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 11; 2013
Annual Review, ECF No. 63 at 46.)
In
March of 2014, Saleh received an email from a customer
complaining about the East Hartford “office manager,
” which Saleh forwarded to Detreux and Gabe. (56(a)1
Stmt. ¶ 12; 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 12; March 2014 Customer
Email, ECF No. 60-7 at 42.) The customer's email stated
that she called the East Hartford office “and spoke to
the office manager (He should be Fired!!!) I called head
office and complained about him.” (ECF No. 60-7 at 42.)
Detreux memorialized the complaint and formally warned Polk
about customer service issues in a letter on May 20, 2014.
(ECF No. 60-7 at 46.) Polk denies that he was the
“office manager” to whom the customer referred.
(56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 12; Polk Deposition, ECF No. 60-5 at
50.)[3]
D.
February 2015 Complaint and Termination
On
February 9, 2015, an individual named E. Paul Grimmeisen
called Sherwin-Williams's customer service line. (56(a)1
Stmt. ¶ 22.) Grimmeisen explained that over the past
several years he had offered housing and other assistance to
individuals struggling with poverty, including Jonathan
Trapp. (Id. at 25-26.) He reported that Trapp had
resigned his position with Sherwin-Williams as a result of
abuse and mistreatment by Polk. (Id. ¶ 27.) Six
days later, Grimmeisen sent Sherwin-Williams a written
complaint detailing Trapp's issues with Polk.
(Id. ¶ 29; see Grimmeisen Letter, ECF
No. 60-7 at 66.) Sherwin-Williams immediately contacted Trapp
and requested that he provide a statement outlining why he
chose to resign, which Trapp provided the same day. (56(a)1
Stmt. ¶ 30-31.) The company assigned Area Human
Resources Manager Melissa Tyler to investigate the complaint.
(Id. ¶ 32; 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 32.) Tyler met
with Trapp, who confirmed that his statement was accurate and
that he had resigned because of Polk's treatment. (56(a)1
Stmt. ¶ 33-35.) Tyler also interviewed and obtained
statements from Moody and Saleh. (56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 36-40;
56(a)2 ¶ 37, 39.)
Tyler
and Gabe traveled to the East Hartford store on February 18,
2015 to interview Polk. (56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 40.) When they
arrived, Polk was leaving the store for lunch. (Id.
¶ 41.) Polk did not return to the store for at least one
hour. (Id. ¶ 42 (asserting that Polk arrived 80
minutes later); 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 42 (asserting that Polk
returned approximately 60 minutes later).) When Polk
returned, Tyler and Gabe continued to wait while Polk spoke
with another employee at the store. (56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 43;
56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 43.) Tyler and Gabe then informed Polk
about Trapp's complaints against him; Polk responded by
accusing Trapp of being a “performance issue.”
(56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 44-45; 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 44-45.) At
one point in the interview, Polk left the room. (56(a)1 Stmt.
¶ 49 (asserting that Polk “became agitated and
abruptly exited the interview”; 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 49
(asserting that Polk left because he had to use the
restroom).) While he was out of the room, he spoke with
Saleh. The content of the conversation is disputed.
Sherwin-Williams asserts that Polk confronted Saleh, asking
why he was “telling people [they had] a problem.”
(56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 50; see Tyler Declaration, ECF
No. 60-3 ¶ 11(d) (“At one point, [Polk] abruptly
exited the interview and confronted Saleh and stated, in an
aggressive fashion: ‘do you have a problem with
me?'”).) Polk counters that he simply asked Saleh
to “assist in clarifying some of the issues raised by
Jonathan Trapp's complaint.” (56(a)2 Stmt. ¶
50; Polk Aff., ECF No. 63 ¶ 11-12.)
Polk
was placed on administrative leave immediately after his
interview. (56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 53; 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 53.)
Based on her investigation, Tyler determined that Polk's
conduct warranted termination. (56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 54;
56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 54.) She presented her findings to VP
Katen, and the two agreed to terminate Polk's employment.
(56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 55.) On February 24, 2015, Tyler and
Gabe met with Polk in person to inform him of his
termination. (56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 57; 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶
57.) Following Polk's termination, Detreux interviewed
and promoted Basil Moody to fill Polk's position. (56(a)1
Stmt. ¶ 60; 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 60.) Moody is African
American. (56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 60; 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ 60.)
Polk
agrees that he has never heard Detreux say anything racist or
derogatory towards African Americans. (56(a)1 ...