Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tate v. General Motors LLC

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

December 20, 2017

RITA TATE, Plaintiff,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [RESOLVING ECF NO. 28]

          BENITA Y. PEARSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Rita Tate, a former employee of Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”), brought this action against GM alleging claims of: (1) race discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.(“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”), and Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4112.02 and 4112.99; and, (2) gender discrimination pursuant to Title VII and Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4112.02 and 4112.99. These claims are now before the Court upon GM's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28). The Court has been advised, having reviewed the record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law. The Court has also considered the oral arguments of counsel offered during the Final Pretrial Conference on December 18, 2017. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.[1]

         I. Stipulated Facts

         The stipulated facts[2] are as follows:

1. Tate was hired on October 1, 2012 as a Group Leader on third shift in the Chassis Department at GM's assembly plant in Lordstown, Ohio (the “Lordstown Plant”).
2. Tate's starting salary was $60, 000.00.
3. As a Group Leader, Tate was responsible for managing teams of 36 hourly employees on an assembly line manufacturing automobiles, and sometimes supervised up to 72 employees.
4. Tate had no experience working in manufacturing and had only limited experience working as a supervisor before she came to GM.
5. Tate had worked as a corrections officer at the Ohio State Penitentiary since 2006 and her only previous supervisory experience - at JCPenney and in social services at Gateways to Better Living - involved supervising fewer than ten employees and had occurred 20 years earlier.
6. Tate's experience was accurately stated in her resume, which was reviewed by GM before she was hired.
7. Tate participated in a one-week orientation period in which general instruction on plant operations and processes was provided.
8. On part of a day during orientation week, Tate shadowed another Group Leader and asked him many questions, which he answered to the best of his ability. Plaintiff learned from the experience and found it helpful.
9. Following orientation, Tate was assigned to the Chassis Department.
10. Tate sought assistance where she could. For example, Team Leader Raymond Smith, a union employee, taught Tate the scrap process on the job.
11. Tate asked questions of Superintendent Ferdinand Martinez and Business Managers Bryon Woost and Janel Tyrus, although ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.