Employer's Prompt Investigation of Workplace Incidents & Documentation of Employee's Poor Job Performance Help Defeat Hostile Work Environment & Race Discrimination Claims

Chaney v. Haworth, Inc. - Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Facts:  Anthony Chaney ("Chaney"), who is African American, worked as a production supervisor at furniture manufacturer, Haworth, Inc. ("Haworth") beginning in July of 2016.  Chaney managed approximately 30 employees.  After receiving training and several informal coaching meetings with his direct supervisor, Tina Pietrangelo ("Pietrangelo"), Pietrangelo began to notice problems with Chaney's work.  In August and September of 2016, Pietrangelo met with Chaney twice to discuss performance and communication issues.  In mid October of 2016, Chaney was issued a "Documented Warning [for] Unsatisfactory Performance."  Chaney was required to create a written plan to fix the problem.

Prior to receiving the  "Documented Warning [for] Unsatisfactory Performance", Chaney told Human Resources Business Partner Tina Porcelli ("Porcelli") about an e-mail Chaney had received from another employee.  The e-mail referenced two African American characters from a movie rolling a marijuana cigarette.  When the co-worker was asked about the e-mail, the co-worker explained it was in reference to a conversation that had been had with Chaney about the movie.  Another employee confirmed the conversation had taken place.

On election night in 2016, while at work, Chaney overheard a derogatory comment that was made about then President Barack Obama.  Chaney apparently reported it to Pietrangelo and was told she would look into it.

After Chaney's job performance did not improve, in late November of 2016, Pietrangelo issued him a "Final Warning [for] Leader Behavior/Performance Below Expectations."  About a week later, Chaney met with Haworth's Vice President of Global Human Resources, Ann Harten, and "shared his concern that [the] documented performance warnings that he had received from his supervisor, Tina Pietrangelo, were the result of racial bias and that his supervisor treated him unfairly."

When Chaney did not make any progress re his job performance, he was terminated on February 13, 2017.  The termination letter detailed Chaney's failure to meet the expectations and requirements set forth in the final warning letter.  Chaney subsequently filed suit against Haworth based upon a hostile work environment and race discrimination claim, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act.  The district court granted Haworth's motion for summary judgment.  Chaney proceed to appeal that ruling.

Holding:  As the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals broke the analysis down based upon the two causes of action, we will track the opinion that same way.

Hostile Work Environment

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it "an unlawful employment practice for an employer...to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."  In order to prevail on this cause of action, Chaney was required to show "that 1) [he] belonged to a protected group; 2) [he] was subject to unwelcome harassment; 3) the harassment was based on race; 4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment; and 5) [Haworth] knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to act."  As the district court found that Chaney had failed to satisfy the fourth and fifth elements, that is what the Court of Appeals focused on in its analysis. 

In light of the incidents that Chaney complained of, the Court of Appeals held that no reasonable jury could conclude that Haworth "failed to act" in response.  The evidence established that Haworth responded appropriately to the e-mail incident by investigating and speaking to the two other employees.  Despite the alleged innocent motive behind the e-mail, Porcelli issued a written warning to Chaney's co-worker that wrote the e-mail.  In regard to another incident in which a Chewbaca figure was found at Chaney's work area, security was contacted at Chaney's request.  Haworth was found to have taken steps to address Chaney's concern, including by calling security and the police to sort the situation out.  As the law requires an employer to take reasonably appropriate corrective action once it learns of harassment, the Court found that Haworth had done just that.

Race Discrimination

Given that Chaney's race discrimination claim was based on indirect evidence, he had the burden of making "a prima facie case of discrimination by showing 1) that he was a member of a protected class; 2) that he was discharged; 3) that he was qualified for the position held; and 4) that he was replaced by someone outside of the protected class.  If Chaney could meet his burden, Haworth would be required to "present a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination."  Chaney would then be required to "show that [Haworth's] proferred nondiscriminatory reason was pretext."

In this instance, the Court of Appeals held that it was not necessary to show whether Chaney had made a prima facie case of discrimination as Chaney was unable to show that Haworth's reason for his termination, his poor performance, was pretextual.  The Court pointed out that Chaney "severely" downplayed the thoroughness and detail of his warning and termination letters.  The letters provided Chaney with specific examples of his substandard performance and required him to create an action plan to fix the performance issues.  The termination letter itself detailed Chaney's failure to meet the expectations and requirements that were in the final warning letter.  In light of the numerous documented performance issues, Chaney had little support for his argument that the performance issues given for his termination were pretextual.

Judgment:  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer on the grounds that the employee could not establish a valid hostile work environment or race discrimination claim, based in part upon the employer's thorough documentation of the employee's repeated and ongoing performance issues.

The Takeaway:  This case is a prime example of an employer properly documenting not only its response/investigation of several allegedly racially motivated incidents in the workplace, but also the employer's ongoing record of the employee's shortcomings and failure to meet set standards in regard to his job performance.  Had the employer ignored the allegedly racially motivated incidents that Chaney pointed out, that could have been detrimental to its defense of the hostile work environment claim.  As well, had the employer not kept an ongoing (written) record of Chaney's poor job performance, that could have hindered its defense to the race discrimination claim.  If anything, employers should remember that documenting performance issues as they occur is paramount.  Trying to remember what happened weeks or months ago is never as good as keeping a contemporaneous record.  In addition, putting the employee on notice of their poor job performance can help better insulate an employer from claims similar to the ones Chaney pursued...as an employee that has a poor job performance record should be kept up to date with their short comings and offered an opportunity to correct it.  In doing so, an employer can rely upon this written record to show that they attempted to work with an employee and have them correct their poor job performance, rather than letting there be a mystery over whether there was an unlawful reason for a termination.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Larsen

Date:  March 9, 2020

Opinion:  https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/20a0136n-06.pdf