Union worker cannot prove employer had ulterior motive in firing
Barbara Lundy sued Thyssen Krupp Steel, arguing that she was terminated from her employment as a result of age and gender disrimination. Lundy had worked for Thyssen Krupp for ten years and had worked as a Line Inspector for seven years. Thyssen Krupp supervisors built a record of progressive discipline directed at Lundy's alleged failure to adequately comply with Chrysler-imposed quality obligations. Lundy filed union grievances, but lost them and did not appeal. After termination, she filed suit and provided an affidavit from a former supervisor, raising factual claims of a vendetta against her by her current supervisor.
The former supervisor corroborated much or all of Plaintiff's claim that Lundy's current supervisor did not like Lundy "because she was a woman;" that the supervisor had never disciplined a male line inspector; that he conspired with management to fire Lundy; and that he routinely disparaged Lundy with age- or gender-specific slurs. Nevertheless, the Court upheld the summary disposition of Lundy's claim, holding that she relied upon inadmissible hearsay, presented isolated comments that she could not locate in time, that the corroborating testimony from her former supervisor's affidavit contradicted his prior testimony, and that Lundy failed to prove either discrimination or that discriminatory conduct caused her termination.