Capers v. Behr Heat Transfer Systems (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-103-12, 15 pp.) (Bruce Howe Hendricks, USMJ) 2:10-cv-03163; D.S.C.
Holding: Even if plaintiff could make out a prima facie case of race discrimination, the defendant-employer has proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing plaintiff: on top of her poor work record, she disobeyed her supervisor’s express instructions twice in six months.
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
As to the first instance of insubordination – leaving her work station unattended so she could get something out of her car for a co-worker whose shift was over, after being instructed not to do so – plaintiff contends that “Hamilton” took an unscheduled break but was not disciplined. However, Hamilton has sworn that she was already clocked out for the day in question; additionally, Hamilton is of the same race as plaintiff.
As to the second instance of insubordination – failing to comply with instructions to pull and tag a potentially defective part – plaintiff offers no explanation.
Plaintiff has not shown that defendant’s reason for firing her was a pretext for race discrimination.
Since plaintiff failed to mention age discrimination in her EEOC charge, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over her age discrimination claim.
The only basis for plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim is defendant’s promotion of a man to a position for which plaintiff had also applied. That promotion occurred in 2004. Plaintiff’s May 8, 2009 EEOC charge was therefore untimely as to this claim.
Plaintiff vaguely alleges disability discrimination connected to the aftermath of a non-work-related car accident in March 2004. Plaintiff has not offered how she was discriminated against on account of her disability; furthermore, any discrimination seems almost certainly to have arisen well over 300 days prior to May 8, 2009.
Dismissed.
