CARUFE v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

NASHVILLE DIVISION
ANTHONY CARUFE )
)
v. ) NO. 3-13-0763
) J UDGE CAMPBELL
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS )
GROUP RESOURCES, INC. )
MEMORANDUM
Pending before the Court is Defendants Motion for Summary J udgment (Docket No. 18).
For the reasons stated herein, Defendants Motion is DENIED.
FACTS
Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant who worked as General Manager of Defendants
Holiday Inn Briley Parkway Hotel (the Hotel). Plaintiff has sued Defendant for age discrimination
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Tennessee Human Rights Act
(THRA), based upon Defendants termination of his employment.
Defendant argues that its reason for firing Plaintiff had nothing to do with age. Defendant
asserts that Plaintiff was fired because he failed to perform his job responsibilities in accordance with
Defendants standards.
SUMMARY J UDGMENT
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(c); Pennington v. State
Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 553 F.3d 447, 450 (6th Cir. 2009). The party bringing the summary
judgment motion has the initial burden of informing the Court of the basis for its motion and
identifying portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute over material
facts. Rodgers v. Banks, 344 F.3d 587, 595 (6th Cir. 2003). The moving party may satisfy this
burden by presenting affirmative evidence that negates an element of the non-moving partys claim
or by demonstrating an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving partys case. Id.
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must review all the evidence, facts
and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Van Gorder v. Grand Trunk
Western Railroad, Inc., 509 F.3d 265, 268 (6th Cir. 2007). The Court does not, however, weigh the
evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, or determine the truth of the matter. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The Court determines whether sufficient evidence has been
presented to make the issue of fact a proper jury question. Id. The mere existence of a scintilla of
evidence in support of the nonmoving partys position will be insufficient to survive summary
judgment; rather, there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the nonmoving
party. Rodgers, 344 F.3d at 595.
AGE DISCRIMINATION
Direct evidence
A violation of the ADEA
1
can be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence.
Provenzano v. LCI Holdings, Inc. 663 F.3d 806, 811 (6
th
Cir. 2011).
2
Direct evidence of
discrimination is that evidence which, if believed, requires the conclusion that unlawful
1
Claims brought under the THRA are governed by the same evidentiary framework
that applies to ADEA claims. Moore v. Nashville Elec. Power Bd., 72 S.W.3d 643, 651 (Tenn.
Ct. App. 2001); Pierson v. Quad/Graphics Printing Corp., 749 F.3d 530, 536 (6
th
Cir. 2014).
2
With both direct and circumstantial evidence, the burden of persuasion remains on
the plaintiff to demonstrate that age was the but-for cause of the employers adverse decision.
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 176 (2009).
2
discrimination was the motivating factor in the employers actions. Sharp v. Aker Plant Services
Group, Inc., 726 F.3d 789, 798 (6
th
Cir. 2013).
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has no direct evidence of discrimination. Plaintiff alleges
several ageist comments by his Regional Director of Operations (RDO), Ms. Kilmartin. Ms.
Kilmartin, who was Plaintiffs boss, denies making these statements.
Defendants assertion that Plaintiff claims only one single age-related statement is not true.
Plaintiff testified that Ms. Kilmartin called him old, with old ideas and past his proper life cycle; that
she asked him what he was doing there so long; that she said, I cant believe youve been here so
long; and that she told him the owners wanted him out. Docket No. 20-4, p. 28 (Plaintiffs
Deposition, p. 107). These alleged statements relate to Plaintiffs job and to his age. In addition,
Plaintiff testified that Ms. Kilmartin later told him he was old and he was sleepy. Id. (p. 108 of
deposition).
Thus, if a jury believes the testimony of Plaintiff, it reasonably could find direct evidence of
discrimination, which precludes summary judgment. A jury also reasonably could find that Ms.
Kilmartin did not make these statements, but there are genuine disputed issues of fact concerning
this direct evidence of age discrimination which preclude summary judgment.
Circumstantial evidence
Alternatively, the Court will examine Plaintiffs indirect evidence of age discrimination. In
order to establish a claim for age discrimination through circumstantial evidence, Plaintiff must show
that (1) he was a member of a protected class; (2) he was subjected to an adverse employment action;
(3) he was qualified for the position he held; and (4) he was replaced by a person outside the
3
protected class. Jones v. Shinseki, 804 F.Supp. 2d 665, 671 (M.D. Tenn. 2011).
3
If Plaintiff is able
to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, the burden shifts to the Defendant to articulate
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for any adverse employment action. Schoonmaker v. Spartan
Graphics Leading, LLC, 595 F.3d 261, 264 (6th Cir. 2010).
4
Ultimately, as noted before, Plaintiff
bears the burden of persuasion to show that his age was a but-for reason for his firing. Gross, 557
U.S. 167 at 176.
It is undisputed that Plaintiff is older than 40 years and that he was subjected to an adverse
employment action. Defendant contends that Plaintiff was not qualified for his position of General
Manager at theHotel because he was not satisfactorily performing his job duties. However, the Court
may not consider Defendants alleged nondiscriminatory reason for firing Plaintiff when analyzing
the prima facie case. Wexler v. Whites Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564, 575 (6
th
Cir. 2003). In any
event, there are disputed facts as to whether Plaintiff was adequately performing his job. Plaintiffs
First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 15) alleges that Plaintiff consistently met objective metrics
for his job, including profitability and revenue growth. Plaintiff asserts that he had been working for
Defendant for 32 years and received an excellent performance review for the twelve months leading
3
The protected class includes all workers at least 40 years old, and the fourth
element has been modified to require replacement not necessarily by a person outside the
protected class, but replacement by a significantly younger person. Grosjean v. First Energy
Corp., 349 F.3d 332, 335 (6
th
Cir. 2003).
4
If Defendant provides a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, the burden shifts
back to Plaintiff to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Defendants
reason is really a pretext to mask intentional discrimination. Jones, 804 F.Supp.2d at 673.
Plaintiff may demonstrate pretext by showing that the proffered reason (1) has no basis in fact,
(2) did not actually motivate Defendants challenged conduct, or (3) was insufficient to warrant
the challenged conduct. Id.
4
up to his termination. Moreover, Plaintiff contends that he received a $47,000 bonus right around
the time of his firing.
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs permanent replacement was not younger than Plaintiff.
Plaintiff contends that those persons who initially were asked to take the job were younger than he.
Defendant has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for ending Plaintiffs
employment: that Plaintiff failed to perform his job responsibilities in accordance with Defendants
standards. Thus, under the indirect evidence model, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to show that
Defendants proffered reason was pretextual.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants alleged reason was merely a pretext for age discrimination.
He states that when ownership of the Hotel changed in J anuary of 2013, his RDO advised him that
Defendant regarded him as too old, that his ideas were too old, that new blood was needed, and that
he had exceeded his proper life cycle. Plaintiff contends that his new RDO evaluated his
performance, even though she did not supervise him in the previous year or have any direct
knowledge of his performance. Plaintiff avers that the RDO commented that Plaintiffs Hotel
needed fresh eyes, needed more energy and enthusiasm, and was stopped in time. Plaintiff contests
the facts upon which Defendant allegedly bases its firing decision. Plaintiff also argues that the Hotel
had just been approved for capital improvements/renovations by the owner just before Plaintiff was
fired. In other words, Plaintiff contends that Defendant really terminated Plaintiffs employment
because of his age.
Defendant, on the other hand, argues that Plaintiff was fired for failure to perform his job
responsibilities as General Manager of the Hotel. Defendant contends that Plaintiff did not fulfill
his responsibilities with regard to the Hotels cleanliness, repair, maintenance, and quality of guest
5
services. Defendant claims that one of its engineers conducted a review of the Hotel and identified
significant repair and maintenance issues which the Hotels chief engineer was tasked with fixing.
Defendant alleges that these issues were not fixed. Defendant argues that the repair and maintenance
was ultimately the responsibility of Plaintiff, whose duty it was to ensure that the chief engineer
made the necessary repairs.
Defendant further claims that when the RDO toured the Hotel, she was shocked at the lack
of cleanliness, the smell, the sticky carpets, and rusted and poorly-operating doors. She discovered
that the proper water treatment testing had not been conducted in months. Defendant avers that
Plaintiff took no responsibility for the Hotels unacceptable condition and, despite the RDOs efforts
to work with Plaintiff and to develop a performance improvement plan to turn the Hotel around,
nothing changed.
The Court finds that there are disputed facts as to the credibility of Defendants articulated
reason for Plaintiffs firing, which preclude summary judgment.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, both as to direct evidence and as to circumstantial evidence, Defendants Motion
for Summary J udgment is DENIED. This case remains set for a jury trial on November 25, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
TODD J . CAMPBELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE
6

CARUFE v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, INC.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CARUFE v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, INC.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CARUFE v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, INC.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

You might also like