The opinion of the court was delivered by: REBECCA PALLMEYER, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Tina Alicea ("Alicea or "Plaintiff") was an employee of
Defendant, Northwest Airlines, Inc. ("Northwest" or "Defendant")
from 1977 until she was terminated on December 11, 2001.
Defendant asserts Plaintiff was terminated for violating
Northwest's Rules of Conduct by working overtime without
permission, falsifying time records, and accepting pay for hours
she did not work. Plaintiff admits submitting time records that
overstated the hours she actually worked, but claims this was
common practice at Northwest. She also claims management
personnel either gave her permission to work the overtime hours
in dispute, or witnessed her working overtime and did not send
her home. Finally, Plaintiff contends other male employees who
engaged in the same practices were not fired. Plaintiff filed
this action, claiming that she was discriminated against based on
her gender in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Defendant
moves for summary judgment and, for the reasons set forth here,
the motion is granted.
The following facts are taken from the parties' Rule 56.1
Statements and Responses, as well as other evidence in the
record.
Tina Alicea began working for Northwest Airlines in the air
freight center as a secretary in 1977. (Complaint ¶ 12.) In 1986,
Plaintiff became a Work Control Clerk, performing administrative
work in the aircraft maintenance department; her regular shift
was Monday through Friday, from 3:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. or 4:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (Defendant's
Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (hereinafter,
"Def's 56.1") ¶¶ 6, 7; Luttenbacher Aff., Ex. C to Def's 56.1,
¶ 4.) Plaintiff's job duties including processing of payroll.
(Complaint ¶ 15.) Dave Luttenbacher, Line Maintenance Operations
Manager, became Alicea's direct supervisor in April 2001. (Def's
56.1 ¶ 11; Luttenbacher Aff. ¶ 3; Alicea Dep., Ex. B to Def.'s
56.1, at 49.) Plaintiff contends, however, that John Kasper and
Mike Tempe, also managers, were "also able to lead and direct"
Plaintiff's work. (Plaintiff's Statement of Uncontested Facts
Pursuant to Rule 56.1, hereinafter, "Pl's 56.1," ¶ 1; Alicea Aff.
¶ 3, Ex. 1 to Pl's 56.1.) Plaintiff testified that these managers
had authority to authorize overtime for her, and Luttenbacher's
deposition testimony suggests that they did. (Alicea Dep., at
155; Luttenbacher Dep., Ex. 2 to Plaintiff's Response to
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (hereinafter, "Pl's
Response"), at 15.) Luttenbacher testified, however, that when
Mr. Kasper authorized Alicea to work overtime, he would report
that to Luttenbacher. (Luttenbacher Dep., at 21.)
Plaintiff's responsibilities included "maintaining and updating
computer databases; processing labor-related information;
monitoring departmental issues to ensure compliance with federal
regulations; handling customer problems; auditing certain
paperwork; participating in special projects; training others on
departmental procedures and systems; and maintaining, updating
and providing technical data to support aircraft maintenance."
(Def's 56.1 ¶ 9; Alicea Dep., at 24; Job Description, Ex. D to
Def's 56.1.) Plaintiff's responsibilities also included replacing
old pages with new pages in aircraft maintenance manuals. (Def's
56.1 ¶ 10; Alicea Dep., at 43, 55-7.) Prior to December 6, 2001,
Luttenbacher considered Plaintiff a "good employee." (Pl.'s 56.1
¶ 24; Luttenbacher Dep., at 9.)
A collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between Northwest and
the International Association of Machinists ("Union") governed
Plaintiff's employment. (Def's 56.1 ¶ 8; Alicea Dep., at 17-18.)
Plaintiff was also subject to Northwest's Rules of Conduct For
Employees of Northwest Airlines. (Def's 56.1 ¶ 15; Alicea Dep., at 27.) Among those
rules was an absolute prohibition on the alteration or
falsification of time cards and the submission of false
information. (Def's 56.1 ¶ 16; Rules of Conduct for Employees of
Northwest Airlines, Ex. F to Def's 56.1 (hereinafter, "Rules"),
Rule No. 33.) The Rules state that falsification of records is a
serious offense that justifies immediate discharge. (Def's 56.1 ¶
17; Rules, General, at 2.)
Soon after he took on his management duties, in May 2001, Dave
Luttenbacher made an announcement in the maintenance managers'
room in which he explained that all overtime work had to be
approved by management. (Alicea Dep., at 76-78; Termination
Letter from Luttenbacher to Alicea, dated December 11, 2001, Ex.
E to Def's 56.1, hereinafter, "Termination Letter.") Alicea
admits that she was present for this announcement, though she
points out that Luttenbacher was not speaking directly to her,
and was instead addressing a group of people. (Alicea Dep., at
77-78; Alicea Aff. ¶ 5.)
Alicea was familiar with the overtime forms and had used them
in the past. (Alicea Dep., at 102-106.) Luttenbacher stopped
using those overtime forms, (Alicea Aff. ¶ 6; Pl's 56.1 ¶ 4;
Luttenbacher Dep., at 22), in order to "save a tree" and instead,
as he testified, relied directly on the employee's time sheet.
(Luttenbacher Dep., at 22.) Luttenbacher did not explain what
information in the employee's time sheet would indicate that
overtime had been approved, but he testified that an employee's
overtime work "would have shown up as time worked, but I would
have known about it." (Id.)
A. Events Leading to Alicea's Termination
Due to the Labor Day Holiday in 2001, the payroll department
requested that clerical staff submit payroll records early, by
Sunday, September 2, 2001. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 18; Alicea Dep., at 79,
83.) Luttenbacher asked Alicea if she could do it all on Tuesday
and avoid working overtime that Labor Day weekend and she responded that she could.*fn1
(Def's 56.1 ¶¶ 19, 20; Alicea Dep., at 85-86.)
Alicea contends, however, that after learning that
Luttenbacher's secretary was out on leave (Alicea does not say
when she became aware of this), she realized that she could not
complete the payroll without working overtime on Sunday,
September 2. (Pl's 56.1 ¶ 5; Alicea Aff. at ¶ 7.) In her
affidavit, Alicea asserted that the secretary's absence resulted
in additional work for her, which in turn affected her ability to
finish the payroll in a timely fashion. (Alicea Aff. ¶ 7.)
Defendant denies these statements as inconsistent with Alicea's
deposition testimony. (Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's
Statement of Uncontested Facts Pursuant to Rule 56.1 ¶ 5,
hereinafter, "Def's Responses to 56.1.") The deposition
transcript does not contain an explicit question regarding any
additional duties brought on by the secretary's leave, but the
court notes that Alicea testified at length about that weekend
and did not mention the secretary's absence. (Alicea Dep., at
78-86.)
Luttenbacher came into work that Sunday and asked Alicea why
she was there. (Def's 56.1 ¶ 21; Alicea Dep., at 80; Termination
Letter.) Alicea responded that she decided to do payroll but told
Luttenbacher she would not put in the time to be paid for it.
(Def's 56.1 ¶ 22; Alicea Dep., at 80-1.) Luttenbacher responded,
"If you work, I will pay you for it," and then reminded Alicea
that all extra hours needed to be approved by management. (Def.
56.1 ¶ 22; Alicea Dep., at 81.) Alicea worked the day, put in for
the time, and was paid for it. (Alicea Dep., at 81.) She contends
that John Kasper had authorized her to come in during the Labor
Day weekend and complete the payroll, and that Kasper "knew I was
there," Alicea Dep., at 79), but she admits she did not tell
Luttenbacher that John Kasper had approved her weekend work.
On December 6, 2001, Luttenbacher noticed certain discrepancies
in Alicea's time entries and observed that she had made many entries manually, without
management permission.*fn2 (Def. 56.1 ¶ 24; Luttenbacher
Aff. ¶ 6.) First, for December 1, 2001, the time records showed
that Alicea had made a manual entry showing that she worked from
6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. (four hours), with coding that indicated
pay for eight hours. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 25-26; Alicea Dep., at 55,
57-8.) Alicea contends that manager John Kasper had approved her
working that Saturday, December 1, 2001. (Alicea Dep., at 57,
59.) She also contends that coding herself for eight hours of pay
was an acceptable past practice within Northwest. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶
7; Alicea Dep., at 58-9.) Northwest denies this claim (Def's
Responses to Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 7), noting that it contradicts Alicea's
deposition, where she testified that the practice of paying
employees for eight hours when ...