Appendix — Yanna-Trombley v. Saturn Corp Corp (No. 06-1303)

OFFICE OF Ti ic CLERK

No.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Marie K. Yanna - Trombley

Plaintiff, pro se,

Petitioner

v.

Saturn Corporation

(Subsidiary of General Motors Corp.)

Respondent

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX TO

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Waverly D. Crenshaw, Marie Yanna-Trombley

Monica Johnson 1090 Spring Place Road

Waller Lansden Lewisburg, TN. 37091

Dortch & Davis, PLLC (93 1)2709688

Nashville City Center, Pro Se,

511 Union Street, Petitioner

Suit 2700

P.O. Box 196966

Nashville, TN. 37219-8966

(615) 244 6380

Counsel for Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX

Reproduced by

Marie K. Yanna- Trombley

District Court Order granting the Defendants’ motion

for summary judgment, August 30, 2005. ..... 27a.

District Court Memorandum granting

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,

ARETE BOG 66h 00 t0actieretee eee 28a.

Order by Honorable Judge Higgins

DISS DG, Dee a v6 ven ceedccstasese ese 47a.

Order by Honorable Judge Haynes granting

Plaintiff Motion to Amend Complaint

Lg Pe er er re 48a.

ii

Continued....

Other Material that Petitioner believes essential

to understand the petition

Excerpts from Plaintiffs Second Amended

Complaint, January 14, 2005...... ......... 50a.

Clerical err by District Court in Caption. ...... 62a.

District Court refers to Eppler’s un sworn

Declaration as being an affidavit............ 63a.

‘Docket Report of Defendants’

declaration of Sharon Eppler................ 64a.

Closing of Supplemental Appendix to

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Closing of Supplemental Appendix.......... 65a.

Case 1:04-cv-00026 Document 75-1 filed 08/31/2005

Page | of 1

IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

COLUMBIA DIVISION

MARIE K.YANNA-TROMBLEY _ )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) NO. 1:04-0026

) JUDGE HAYNES

SATURN CORPORATION, )

Defendant. )

)

ORDER

In accordance with the Memorandum filed herewith,

the Defendants’ mtion for summary judgment (Docket

Entry No. 48) is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED

with prejudice.

This is the Fina? Order in this action.

It is so ORDERED.

ENTERED this the 30" day of August, 2005.

“s/ William J. Haynes Jr.”

William J. Haynes, JR

United States District Judge

bdo

oO

FS)

Case 1: 04-cv-00026 Document 74-1 Filed 08/31/2005

Page lof 12

IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

COLUMBIA DIVISION

MARIE K.YANNA-TROMBLEY

Plaintiff,

v. NO. 1:04-0026

JUDGE HAYNES

SATURN CORPORATION,

Defendant.

a

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff, Marie K. Yanna-Trombley, filed this action

against the Defendant Saturn Corporation asserting claims

for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

U.S.C. § 12101 et seg. (“ADA”); the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”), and

the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-

101 et seq. (“THRA”) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges a

hostile work environment because of her perceived disability

and/or her age in violation of the ADA, the ADEA, and the

THRA. Plaintiff also alleges that Saturn retaliated against

Plaintiff after she complained about the alleged

discrimination and hostile work environment in violation of

the ADA, the ADEA, and the THRA. Finally, Plaintiff

asserts that she was constructively discharged. = -

Before the Court is the Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 48), contending, in

sum: (1) that Plaintiff does not have a “disability” nor did

Saturn regard her as having any impairment as defined by

the ADA: {2} that Plaintiff's proof fails to prove that Saturn

took any adverse employment action against her because of

her age or perceived disability; (3) that Plaintiff's was not

subjected to any unwelcome conduct based upon her age or

perceived disability; (4) that Saturn took prompt and

appropriate corrective action upon

Case 1: 04-cv-00026 Document 74-1 Filed 08/31/2005

Page 2 of 12

Plaintiff's complaints about her co-workers; (5) that

Plaintiff's retaliation claim fails because Saturn did not take

any adverse action against her that is causally connected to

her complaints of alleged discrimination and harassment;

and (6 ) that Saturn neither coerced nor encouraged Plaintiff

to resign.

A. Findings of Fact '

Plaintiff worked as an Operations Technician at

Saturn from 1991 until September 20, 2003. (Docket Entry

No. 66, Trombley Deposition at pp. 20-22). Plaintiff was a

tnember of Local 1853 of the International Union of the

United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement

Workers of America (“UAW”). Id. at 27. The terms and

' Upon a motion for summary judgment; the factual contentions

are viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the

motion for summary judgment. Duchon v. Cajon Co., 792 F.2d

43, 46 (6" Cir. 1986 ) app. 840 F.2d 16 (6" Cir. 1988 )

( unpublished opinion ). As will be discussed infra, upon the

filing of a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party

must come forth with sufficient evidence to withstand a motion

for directed verdict, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242,

247-52 (1986 ), particularly where there has been an opportunity

for discovery. Celotex Corp. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986).

The Court concludes that there are not any material factual

disputes. Thus, this section constitutes findings of fact under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (d).

ww

ne

p

conditions of Plaintiffs employment were governed by the

Memorandum of Agreement and Guiding Principles, that is

considered a collective bargaining agreement. Exhibit 7

thereto.

In May 2002, Plaintiff filed an action, Marie Yanna-

Trombley v. Saturn Corp.. No. 1:02-0045, United Sates

District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Columbia

Division, alleging that Saturn discriminated against her

based upon a perceived mental impairment in violation of

the ADA.. On October 30, 2002, Plaintiff signed a

Settlement Agreement and General Release (“Settlement

Agreement”) that waived “all known and unknown claims,

promises, causes of action, or similar rights of any type” that

she could have brought in the -

Case 1: 04-cv-00026 Document 74-1 Filed 08/31/2005

Page 3 of 12

lawsuit as of October 30, 2002 in exchange for

reinstatement. Id. at p. 210 and Exhibit 7 thereto. The

Settlement Agreement also stated, “In consideration for my

agreement to the terms of this release,... I will be placed

Ww

tho

$

either into a permanent opening on a team or into a

temporary Common Module position until a permanent

opening becomes vacant.” Id. at Exhibit 7pp. 1-2. Pursuant

to the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff returned to work on

December 2, 2002.

Under Saturn’s policy and procedure, all employees

who are newly hired, rehired, or reinstated at Saturn are

required to sign an Employment Agreement. (Docket Entry

No. 51, Attachment 3 thereto, Bradley Deposition at pp. 8-

- 10). Plaintiff signed such an agreement. (Docket Entry no

66, Trombley Deposition at p. 94 and Exhibit 2 thereto).

In accordance with the Settlement Agreement,

Plaintiff was placed in a temporary position until a

permanent job position became available. Id. at p. 210. On

March 1, 2003, Plaintiff applied for and, based upon her

seniority, received a permanent position in the SUV 240

module without any change in pay or benefits. (Docket

Entry No. 51, Attachment No. 6, Eppler Affidavit at 4 3

and Exhibit A thereto).

On January 27, 2003, Plaintiff complained to Lynne

Anderson, Saturn’s EEO Advisor, that Gary Goforth, a co-

worker, had threatened her. Sharon Eppler, the people

systems coordinator, investigated and learned that the

offending conduct was that Goforth would wave at Plaintiff

and Plaintiff considered that conduct “threatening and

intimidating.” (Docket Entry No. 66, Trombley Deposition

at 79-80). After the investigation, Eppler told Plaintiff that

she had spoken with Goforth and Plaintiff later transferred to

a different area from Goforth’s area. (Docket Entry No. 51,

Attachment No.6 and Eppler Affidavit at 7 5, Exhibit B

Ww

o&

thereto). Plaintiff later complained to Anderson and Eppler

About Pam Czajka, a Co-worker.

Case 1: 04-cv-G0026 Document 74-1 Filed 08/31/2005

Page 4 of 12

Czajka told Plaintiff that she wanted to take Plaintiff

“under her wing” and tried to help Plaintiff do her job.

(Docket Entry No. 66, Trombley Deposition at 108 ).

Saturn’s staff (“Non-rep 01 VIA”), met with Plaintiff and

Czajka. Id.112. The staff members informed Plaintiff that

Czajka’ s behavior would not continue. Id. at 112. Czajka

no longer attempted to help Plaintiff after that meeting. Id.

Plaintiff testified that another employee called her

the “little Cockpit girl,” and put retainer stock in her way

and then said “don’t’ trip.” Id. At the time Plaintiff worked

on the cockpit line. Id. According to Eppler, Plaintiff did

not report this incident to Saturn. (Docket Entry No. 51,

Attachment No. 6 Eppler Affidavit at 4 4 ).

On June 26, 2003, Plaintiff complained to Anderson

and Eppler that Carla Luster, a operations module advisor

pushed her. Id. At Attachment No. 61, Eppler Affidavit at

6. Eppler investigated Plaintiff's complaints and

interviewed team members who could have witnessed the

alleged conduct. Id. According to Eppler, in this small work

area, Plaintiff, Luster and other team members would

routinely bump into each other by accident. Eppler spoke

with Plaintiff on July 21, 2003, about the results of her

investigation and informed her that the matter was closed.

Id. at { 6.

On August 15, 2003, plaintiff filed an administrative

charge with the Tennessee Human Rights Commission.

On September 18, 2003, a quality issue arose in

Plaintiff's assigned area. Under its policies and procedures,

Saturn implemented a “128 Job Aid” process to track

quality issues. Id. Eppler Affidavit at | 7, Exhibit C thereto.

For this process, team members are required to complete a

Job Aid Form with team member’s name, the Vehicle

Identification Number (“VIN”)

Case 1: 04-cv-00026 Document 74-1 Filed 08/31/2005

Page 5 of 12

of the first vehicle that the team member worked on, and the

VIN of the last vehicle in which the team member worked

during the shift. Id at 4 8, Exhibit D. Plaintiff completed

her form on September 18 and 19, 2003, Id. at Exhibit D, re

but on September 20, 2003, when Plaintiff refused to sign

the Job Aid Form, David Solima, Non-Rep OMA, reviewed

the written policy on this process with Plaintiff and

explained the need for her to sign the Form. Trombley

Deposition at 142. Plaintiff continued to refuse to sign the

Form. Id. 140. Plaintiff contends that Solima put the papers

in her face and that the papers did not have to be signed by

her.

Solima, Irwin and Luster, then met with Plaintiff

about her refusal to sign, (Docket Entry No. 51,

Attachment No. 6 Eppler Affidavit at ¥ 9), but Plaintiff

refused to attend the meeting. Id. Plaintiff then ran to a

telephone located on the production floor and make some

telephone calls. Id. Solima and Theresa Plonkey, Area

Module Advisor, advised Plaintiff that any telephone call

should be made in the privacy of a conference room, not the

production line. Id. at § 12, Exhibit F at p. 2. Plaintiff

ignored them and continued to make calls from the

telephone on the production floor. Id. Solima then

disconnected the telephone and Plaintiff struck his arm and

began screaming. Id. at Exhibit F p.2. Plaintiff notes that

Solima was red-faced and slammed the telephone receiver.

Plaintiff began to run around the production floor and

supervisors and members of Saturn security were called and

advised Plaintiff to make her telephone calls in a conference

room. Id. at p.3 Eppler followed Plaintiff and informed her

to make her calls in private without disrupting the

production line. Id. at 4 10. Plaintiff yelled, “No. No. No.

No. No.” and left the plant on September 20, 2003. Id.

Plaintiff never returned to Saturn. Id. at § 17.

Saturn scheduled a meeting with Plaintiff on

September 23, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. at Saturn’s Visitor Center.

Id. at § 14. Terry Wonderlin, a team leader, called Plaintiff

on September 23,

Case 1: 04-cv-00026 Document 74-1 Filed 08/31/2005

Page 6 of 12

2003, to remind Plaintiff of the meeting. (Docket Entry No.

66, Trombley Deposition at 168. Plaintiff's husband

received Wonderlin’ s message on September 23, 2003. Id.

Plaintiff did not attend the meting, nor did she call to inform

anyone at Saturn about her failure to attend the meeting, Id.

at 176. About three hours later, Plaintiff and her husband

arrived at Saturn’s gates, but without their badges, they

could not enter Saturn’s property. Id. Plaintiff did not

request to see Wonderlin, nor mention the meeting.

Id. at 176. When Eppler learned that Plaintiff was at the

gates, she met her, but Plaintiff left before arrangements

could be made. (Docket Entry No. 51, Attachment No.6

Eppler Affidavit at 4 15). Plaintiff contends that Saturn

security vehicles surrounded her and detained her for thirty

miresies.

On September 23, 2003, Saturn sent Plaintiff a letter

Ww

~~]

is)

setting a second meeting for 4:00 p.m. on September 26,

2003, at Saturn’s Visitor Center to discuss the events of

September 20, 2003. Id. at | 6. This letter notified Plaintiff

that Saturn would consider her employment terminated if

she failed to attend this meeting. (Docket Entry No. 66,

Trombley Deposition at Exhibit 4 ). Plaintiff received this

letter on September 26, 2003, but she did not attend the

meeting, nor contact Saturn about her inability to meet.

Trombley Deposition at 183, 187. On September 29. 2003,

Saturn sent Plaintiff a letter notifying her that it considered

her to have voluntary quit effective September 20, 2003. Id.

at Exhibit 6.

B. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

To prove her ADA claim, Plaintiff must prove a

disability under the Act. Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624,

630 (1998); Penny v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 128 F.3d

408, 414 (6" Cir. 1997). To prove a disability, Plaintiff must

establish:

(A) a physical or mental impairment that

substantially limits one or more of [his ] major life

activities...,

Case 1: 04-cv-00026 Document 74-1 Filed 08/31/2005

Page 7 of 12

(B) a record of such impairment; or

(C ) being regarded as having such an impairment.

42 U.S.C. § 12102. “[A] defendant bears no burden of

production or proof if the plaintiff cannot establish that he or

she is disabled.” Monette v. Electronic Data Sys., 90 F. 3d

1173, 1182 (6 Cir. 1996 ).

Plaintiff admits that she is not actually disabled.

( Docket Entry No. 66, Trombley Deposition at 75), but

asserts that Saturn regarded her as having mental

deficiencies and having a record of a disability. Id. at 73.

For a “regarded as” claim under the ADA, Plaintiff

must prove that Saturn mistakenly believed that she had an

“impairment that substantially limits one or more major life

activities,” or that Saturn mistakenly believed that Plaintiff

had an “actual, non limiting impairment substantially [that]

limits one or more major life activities.” Sutton v. United

Air Lines. Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 489 (1999). “ In both cases, it

is necessary that a covered entity entertain misperceptions

about the individual - it must believe either that one has a

substantially limiting impairment that one does not have or

that one has a substantially limiting impairment when, in

fact, the impairment is not so limiting.” Id.

Plaintiff cites co-worker’ expressed concerns about

her mental state after the September 20" incident on the

production floor. Plaintiff admits that she did not know

about these workers statements until he received her file

from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(“EEOC”). (Docket Entry No. 66, Trombley Deposition at

118, 120-21. These statements do not prove liability as to

Saturn. See Smith v. Leggett Wire Co., 220 F.3d 752, 762

(6" Cir. 2000) (unlawful animus by low-level employees

cannot be attributed to the employer).

Plaintiff must also present evidence that Saturn

misperceived her as being unable to work

Case |: 04-cv-00026 Document 74-1 Filed 08/31/2005

Page 8 of 12

in a broad class of jobs. See Sutton, 527 U.S. at 491-92;

Murphy v. United Parcel Serv., 527 U.S. 516, 523 (1999)

(“To be regarded as substantially limited in the major life

activity of working, one must be regarded as precluded from

more than a particular job.”). Accord Moorer v. Baptist

Mem?’| Health Care Svs., 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 2227, * 11

(6" Cir. Feb. 11, 2005), (an ADA Plaintiff must show

Defendant considered Plaintiff as “unable to perform the

same general type of work in the same geographic area.”’)

40a

As applied here, Saturn assigned Plaintiff to a Operations

Technician position and treated Plaintiff as it did other

Saturn team members. Saturn required Plaintiff to sign an

Employment Agreement, but required all rehired or

reinstated team members, to do so. From her proof, Plaintiff

is not substantially limited in any major life activity.

Plaintiff's proof fails on her ADA claim.

As to Plaintiff's ADA claim for Saturn maintaining a

“record of” her disability, Saturn has a medical record that

indicates that Plaintiff has a mental impairment. To assert

“record of” a substantially limiting impairment, however,

“[t]he impairment indicated in the record must be an

impairment that substantially limits one or more of the

individual’s major life activities.” 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(k); see

Edwards v. Ford Motor Co., 218 F. Supp, 2d 846, 851 (W.

D. Ky. 2002) ( a “record of” impairment claim requires

showing that the plaintiff actually suffered an impairment

that substantially limits one or more major life activities).

In her prior legal action, Plaintiff released all claims

related to her pre- December 2002 employment. (Docket

Entry No.66, Trombley Deposition at 210, Exhibit 7). Since

Plaintiffs reinstatement on December 2, 2002, Saturn has

not received or created any medical records related to

Plaintiff. See Docket Entry No. 51, Attachment No. 5,

Saturn’s Response to Plaintiffs First Request for Production

No. 1. Plaintiff has failed to prove that any such record is in

>

—_

&

|

Case 1: 04-cv-00026 Document 74-1 Filed 08/31/2005

: Page 9 of 12

Saturn’s possession. In any event, the possession of records

alone fails to establish a claim under the ADA. Taylor v.__

United States Postal Service, 946 F. 2d 1214, 1217 (6" Cir

1991 ) (an employer’s possession of an employee’s medical

record does not establish a “record of disability).

Accordingly, as a matter of law, Plaintiff's “record of

disability” claim under the ADA fails.

To prove her age discrimination claim, Plaintiff must

present direct or circumstantial evidence of discriminatory

treatment.” Johnson v. Kroger Co., 319 F. 3d 858, 864-65

(6" Cir. 2003). Plaintiff's lack of direct evidence of

discrimination requires her claim to met the standards in

MacDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802

(1973 ). Thus, Plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a

member of a protected group; (2) she was subject to an’:

adverse employment action; (3) she was qualified for the

position from which he was fired; and (4) she was replaced

by someone outside the protected class, or she was treated

differently that employees outside the protected class for the

same or similar conduct. Id See also Talley v. Bravo Pitino

Rest., LTD, 61 F. 3d 1241, 248 (6" Cir. 1995)).

Here, Plaintiff has not proved an adverse

employment action and that she was subject to different

treatment. An adverse employment action is a “materially

adverse change in the terms or conditions of ... employment

42a

because of the employer’s conduct.” Mitchell v. Vanderbilt

Univ., 389 F. 3d 177, 182 (6" Cir. 2004 ) (quoting Kocsis v.

Multi-Care Mgmt., 97 F. 3d 876, 885 (6" Cir. 1996)). This

change in employment conditions “must be more disruptive

than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job

responsibilities,” }d. Plaintiff fails to identify any adverse

employment action based upon her age. Plaintiff signed an

Employment Agreement,

Case i: 04-cv-00026 Document 74-1 Filed 08/31/2005

Page 10 of 12

which did not affect her pay or status. Plaintiff's ADEA and

THRA? claim fails as a matter of law.

To sustain a hostile work environment claim,

Pjaintiff must establish: (1) that she is a member of a

? Plaintiffs age discrimination claim under the THRA is analyzed

the same way as claims under the ADEA. See Watson v. Food

Lion, Inc., 147 F. Supp. 2d 883, 884 (E.D. Tenn. 2000 ).

protected class; (2) that she was subjected to unwelcome

harassment; (3) that the harassment was based on her age or

perceived disability; (4) that the harassment had the effect of

unreasonably interfering with her work performance by

creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work

environment; and (5) the existence of employer liability.

See Newman v. Federal Express Corp., 266 F. 3d 401, 405

(6" Cir 2001 )? The Court must consider the “totality of the

circumstances,” including: “the frequency of the

discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically

threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance;

and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s

work performance.” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S.

17, 21 (1993 ). For any alleged “harassment” to be

actionable, Plaintiff's work environment must have been so

“permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and

insult that it was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the

conditions of [her] employment.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 21.

Subject perceptions, vague allegations, or conclusory

assertions are not probati, >. See Bowman v. Shawnee State

Univ., 220 F. 3d 456, 464 (6" Cir 2000 ).

Plaintiff cites co-workers’ treatment that Plaintiff

> The standard for Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim

under the ADA is the same as that used for hostile work

environment claims under Title VII. See Coulson v. Goodyear

Tire & Rubber Co., No. 00-3818, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 4623,

*19 (6" Cir. March 14, 2002 ).

4da

was lazy and that they felt sorry for her. Courts have held

that such conduct is insufficient to establish a hostile work

environment.

10

Case 1: 04-cv-00026 Document 74-1 Filed 08/31/2005

Page 11 of 12

See Faragher v. City uf Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788

(1998 ). Plaintiff does not establish that the alleged name-

calling interfered with her work performance and therefore

she fails to meet the fourth element of the required prima

facie case. In any event , this alleged name-calling was not

based on Plaintiff's age or perceived disability. Plaintiff's

proof also fails to demonstrate a severity or pervasiveness

necessary to prove a hostile work environment claim.

Moreover, to hold Saturn liable on these claims,

Plaintiff must also prove that the employer knew or should

have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and

appropriate corrective action. See EEOC_v. Harbert-

Yeargin, Inc., 266 F. 3d 498, 518 (6" Cir. 2001). Here,

Saturn investigated promptly all of Plaintiffs complaints and

took appropriate corrective action, removing the named co-

worker form her area or stopping a repetition of the cited co-

worker’s statements or conduct.

To establish her retaliation claim, Plaintiff must

show that (1 ) that she engaged in a protected activity; (2)

that Saturn knew that she engaged in this protected activity;

(3) that she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4)

that a causal connection exists between the protected activity

and the adverse employment action. See Abbott v. Crown

Motor Co., 348 F.3d 537, 542 (6" Cir. 2003 ). Fora

constructive discharge claim, Plaintiff must show that (1)

Saturn deliberately created intolerable working conditions,

as perceived by a reasonable person, and (2) Saturn did so

with the intention of forcing Plaintiff to quit. See Logan v.

Denny’s, Inc., 259 F.3d 588, 568-69 (6 Cir. 2001 ).

From her proof, Plaintiff did not suffer an adverse

employment action after she complained about other

employees. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that her

“termination” was an adverse employment action, Plaintiff

has not proved any causal connection. Plaintiff voluntarily

resigned while Saturn sought to discuss her continued work

at Saturn. For the

11

Case 1: 04-cv-00026 Document 74-1 Filed 08/31/2005

Page 12 of 12

reasons stated on Plaintiff's other claims, Plaintiff's proof

46a

could not support a judgment on this claim.

In sum, the Court’s review of the proof does not

support Plaintiff's claim. Thus, the Defendant’s motion for

summary Judgment should be granted.

An appropriate Order is filed herewith.

ENTERED this the 30" day of August, 2005.

“s/ William J. Haynes Jr.”

William J. Haynes, JR

United States District Judge

>

~~]

©

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

COLUMBIA DIVISION

MARIE K. YANNA-TROMBLEY

V. |

SATURN CORPORATION ] No. 1-04-0026

] Judge Higgins

ORDER

All discovery related motions shall be filed by the

close of business on December 17, 2004.

Any further motions to amend the pleadings shall be

filed by the close of business on January 14, 2005.

All dispositive motions shall be filed by the close of

business on January 28, °005.

No memorandum in support of or in opposition to

any motion shall exceed twenty (20) pages. No reply shall

be filed to any response unless invited by the Court.

Strict compliance is required to Rule 8 (b ) (7 ) Local

Rules of Court relating to motions for summary judgment.

It is so ORDERED.

“s/ Thomas A . Higgins

Thomas A. Higgins

United States District Judge

11-24-04/

”

This document was entered on the docket in

compliance with Rule 58 and/ or Rule 79 (a ).

FRCP, on 11/29/04 By “s/ km” (32)

48a

case 1: 04-cv-00026 Document 73-1 Filed 07/15/2005

Page | of I

FILED “s/ km ”

2005 JAN 14 PM 3:36

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TN

a

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

COLUMBIA DIVISION

MARIE K.YANNA-TROMBLEY _ )

Plaintiff, prose ) NO. 1-04-0026

) Judge Thomas A.

v. ) Higgins

) Magistrate

SATURN CORPORATION, ) Judge Knowles

(Subsidiary of General Motors Corp.) ) Jury Demand

Defendant )

ORDER

This motion

is GRANTED

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a)

“s/ William J. Haynes Jr.”

7-14 -05

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Comes now Plaintiff, Marie K. Yanna- Trombley,

Pro Se and respectfully moves this court to allow Plaintiff

49a

to make this second amendment to her original complaint so

to state with particularity that: __

(A) Amend to Paragraph 11: Defendant Saturn

Corporation’s Equal Employment Opportunity Advisor

Lynn Anderson and Saturn financial Vickie Bradley,

knowingly misrepresented the truth to the Plaintiff

particularity on December 02, 2002. Plaintiff also felt the

employment agreement was for temporary workers not

represented by UAW. Plaintiff was told she had to sign the

Employment Agreement in order for Plaintiff to return to

work. Plaintiff was told she had to sign the Employment

Agreement in order for Plaintiff to return to work. On about

October 20, 2004 Plaintiff discovered that she was not

reinstated as according to the settlement agreement.

1 of 6 pages

( 42)

RECEIVED

IN CLERK’S OFFICE

JAN 14 2005

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

MID. DIST. TENN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

COLUMBIA DIVISION

MARIE K.YANNA-TROMBLEY )

Plaintiff, pro se )

) NO. 1-04-0026

v. ) Judge Thomas A

) Higgins

SATURN CORPORATION, ) Magistrate Judge

(Subsidiary of General Motors Corp.) ) Knowles

Defendant ) Jury Demand

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

UNDER TITLE Vil OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF

1964.

The Plaintiff, Marie K. Yanna- Trombley , pro se

brings this complaint against the defendant, Saturn

Corporation a subsidiary of General Motors Corporation,

(hereinafter called “Saturn “‘) , as follows:

A)

a

&

Jurisdiction and Venue

1. This action is brought pursuant to Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employment discrimination. ©

Jurisdiction is specifically conferred on the court by 42

U.S.C. , sections 2000e-5 et seg. and section 102 of the

Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C., section 2000e-5(f)(3),

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

(“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. section 621, et seg., 42 U.S.C.,

section 2000e 5(f)(3), the Civil

1 of 13

Rights Act of 1991), 42 U.S.C., section 1981a, the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (ADA”), 42

U.S.C. sections 12101 et. seg., which incorporates by

reference the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. section

1981a and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (“THRA”),

Tenn. Code Annotated, Sections 4-21-102 et seq. Plaintiff

for damages seeks equitable relief, back pay, compensatory

damages, cost, interest and attorneys fees for age and

disability discrimination as having been regarded as or

having a record of a mental disability, hostile work

environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge.

Equitable and other relief are also sought under 42 U.S.C.

section 2000e-5(g).

2. This action presents a Federal question (s ) ,

jurisdiction in this court is invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

section 2000e-5, Section 1331 of Title 28, for claims arising

under 29 U.S.C. 621 et seg. , 42 U.S.C. section 12101 et

seg., 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-5(f)(3), 42 U.S.C. , 42

U.S.C., section 2000e-(g). Jurisdiction of this Court over

the state claims set forth in this complaint is invoked

pursuant to Fennessee Code Annotated, Section 4-21-101, et

seg., in this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction as provided in

28 U.S.C. , Section 1367. The amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.

3. Venue for this action properly lies in this Court

because all the acts complained of herein arise in this

judicial district. And in particular Defendant Saturn

Corporation is a subsidiary of General Motors Corporation

and can be found and transacts business in this judicial

district at 100 Saturn Parkway P.O. Box 1500, Spring Hill,

Maury County Tennessee 37174. After the filing of the

original complaint, the place of business has been renamed

from “Saturn” to “G.M. Spring Hill Manufacturing”. Venue

is therefore proper in this Court.

2 of 13

53a

4. On August 15, 2003, within three hundred (300)

days of the last act complained of, Plaintiff filed charges

with the Tennessee Human Rights Commission (“THRC”).

Those charges included age and sex discrimination,

disability discrimination as being regarded as having a

disability, intimidation, coercion and harassment,

retaliation/reprisal and continuing violation. Plaintiff

received a notice of right to sue, executed by the EEOC area

director, dated January 20, 2004; attached as Exhibit 1 and

including attached copy of the charges filed with the

Tennessee Human Rights commission or the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission, which charges are

submitted as a brief statement of the facts supporting this

complaint.

5. On October 29, 2003 , within three hundred (300)

days of filing her intial complaint, Plaintiff filed a second

charge with the THRC, wherein she alleged age

discrimination, disability discrimination, being regarded as

or having a record of having a mental disability,

retaliation/reprisal, hostile work environment, harassment,

constructive discharge and continuing action. Plaintiff

received a second notice of right to sue, executed by the

EEOC Area Director dated February 27, 2004; attached as

Exhibit 2. and including attached copy of the charges filed

with the Tennessee Human Rights commission or the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission, which charges are

submitted as a brief statement of the facts supporting this

complaint.

34a

6. Plaintiff has filed suit within ninety (90 ) days of

receipt of her Notices of Right to Sue.

3 of 13

7. Plaintiff Marie K. Yanna- Trombley is a 48 year

old female citizen of the United States and resides a 1090

Spring Place Road. Lewisburg, Marshall County,

Tennessee 37091; Phone number (931 )- 270 9688 and who

has been employed by General Motors since 1977, and

transferred to Saturn in 1991, and in particular now equaling

a combined service of over 25 years.

8. In particular, Defendant Saturn Corporation is a

subsidiary of General Motors Corporation with principal

offices located at 300 Renaissance Center P.O. Box 300

Detroit, Michigan 48265-3000; mail code 482-C39-850.

9. Defendant is a “ employer” as defined in 42

US.C., Section 2000(e) et seq. and Tennessee Code Anno.,

Section 4-21-102, in that the defendant employed , in

particular more than five thousand (5,000) persons within

the State of Tennessee at all times relevant to Plaintiff's

claims .

As

wa

+e)

10. Plaintiff was employed in the position of

Operating Technician at Saturn, she had previously filed a

Federal Discrimination Complaint against Saturn which was

settled in October, 2002. Plaintiff returned to work at

Saturn on December 2, 2002.

11. Saturn’s retaliation against Plaintiff began

almost immediately after she returned to work and continued

thereafter on an ongoing basis creating a hostile work

environment for her. In particular on Plaintiff's first day

back to work management EEO Lynne Anderson caused

Plaintiff to report to Vicky Bradley of Saturn’s Financial at

Bank of America to up date papers for Plaintiffs Benefits.

There and with out union representation, Vicky Bradley and

EEO Lynne Anderson, who was on the speaker phone

4 of 13

, coerced Plaintiff to sign a employment agreement trying to

undermined and redefined the terms of Plaintiff's legitimate

expectations of being reinstated as according to the Federal

Settlement Agreement. ...... Plaintiff was told she had to

sign the Employment Agreement in order for Plaintiff to

return to work....

13. Defendant’s management , supervisors and

Plaintiff's co-workers began a course o1 retaliatory

discriminatory conduct shortly after Plaintiff's return to

work in December, 2002, including but not limited to

humiliating and ridiculing her, threatening, badgering and

belittling her, unduly criticizing her, making false statements

about her, and assaulting her.....

5 of 13

pices Defendant Saturn Corporation’s later alleged PS team

leader Terry Wonderlin and Saturn Corporation’s PSC

Sharon Eppler concealed material facts and made false

statements concerning the Plaintiff on about August 06,

2003 when Saturn skipped over the Bargaining Agreement

steps and tried to place Plaintiff in a red zone step, setting

her up for discharge, publishing false information and

accusations in the red zone contract, and disciplining

plaintiff because she opposed discrimination by making

complaints.

14. Such conduct interfered with Plaintiff's work

and created a hostile and intolerable work environment....

6 of 13

7)

~~]

©

15. After Plaintiff notified Saturn’s EEO,

Management and the Union on about June 15, 2003, that she

would file THRC and EEOC complaints, Defendant’s

retaliatory conduct escalated; even more so after Plaintiff

filed the THRC complaint on August 15, 2003.

16. Defendant intentionally set Plaintiff up to insure

that Plaintiff's employment would be terminated.

17. Particularly on September 20, 2003, Dave

Salima, a large, six-foot, three inch Saturn supervisor

interrupted Plaintiff's work and threatened and frightened

Plaintiff trying to cause her to sign her legal name on a form.

Plaintiff tried to continue to work but was stopped. While

Plaintiff was on the factory floor column phone, to get help,

Dave Salima hung the phone up. Plaintiff tried to redial but

Dave Solima hit her hand away. Plaintiff then informed

Dave Solima that she needed to call the police and Plaintiff

attempted to redial the telephone to get help. Dave Salima

continued to hit and slap her hands away from the phone,

physically assaulting her...... The plaintiff left the

premises and went to the Sheriff's Department to file

Assault charges against Dave Solima...... In retaliation,

Saturn/General Motors, withdrew plaintiffs complete pay

deposit being $ 1,451. 86 from her bank account and has not

paid or returned the plaintiff's wages she earned for hours of

work she did for defendant. ......

7 of 13

18. ....In particular Plaintiff returned on September

23, 2003 to work after authorized E- Vac. The guard at the

Saturn entrance guard shack told Plaintiff that she was

restricted from the Saturn property then Security Mark

Murphy asked for Plaintiff's badge..... Plaintiff did not

receive the September 23, 2002 letter until after 4:17 p.m. on

September 26, 2003. Plaintiff, of course, could not attend

the meeting because the notice was sent too late.

19. Defendant Saturn carried out its threat and

terminated Plaintiff. ....

8 of 13

ieee And Particularity Sharon Eppler concealed the fact that

the plaintiff was allowed to E-Vac and could leave the plant

without prior approval up to three different occasions as

according to the 2000 Saturn UAW Collective Bargaining

Agreement/ Guiding principles...... Defendant Saturn

Corporation’s EEO Advisor misrepresented the truth and

even published false information

9 of 13

concerning the Plaintiff on different occasions and

particularity in around August, November, December 2003

by sending to the Tennessee Human Rights Commission/

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission false

allegations, documents containing false records and back

dated documents.....

20. Plaintiff avers that the illegal conduct set forth in

paragraphs eleven (11 ),..... Seventeen (17 ),.....and

nineteen (19 ) was carried out as a result of her prior reports

of discriminatory conduct at Saturn, her filing of the Title

VII lawsuit against Saturn which

2 10 of 13

was settled in 2002,...... and the August 15, 2003 report to

the THRC of discriminatory conduct at Saturn.

22. At all times relevant to this complaint,

Defendant’s employees were acting within the scope of their

employment and as agents of the Defendant, pursuant to the

doctrine of respondeat superior. Some of these employees,

as supervisors and managers, affected decisions to hire, fire,

discipline and/ or promote Plaintiff.

26. Defendant has engaged in a pattern of

discriminatory conduct and

1] of 13

continually violated Title VII. Defendant is liable under the

continuing violation doctrine.

27. As a direct or proximate result of the conduct

and actions of Defendant, Plaintiff suffered humiliation,

embarrassment, duress and involuntary termination of her

job or a constructive discharge.

28. Asa direct and proximate result of the conduct

and actions of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered a loss of

wages and other benefits, both past and future, for which she

is entitled to be awarded damages against the defendant.

29. Injunctive relief should issue ordering

Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff in the position of Operating

Technician at the level of seniority, credited service and pay

Plaintiff would have attained had her employment not been

interrupted.

30. Plaintiff is entitled to be awarded her reasonable

attorneys fees and costs of this cause.

>)

©

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS;

1... That injunctive relief be granted, .......

2. That this Court award Plaintiff compensatory and

punitive damages.....including back wages,....

3. That this Court award Plaintiff her reasonable

attorneys fees,...and costs of this cause.

12 of 13

4. That this matter be tried before a jury.....

5. That this Court award Plaintiff such other relief

as may be just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

“ s/ Marie K. Yanna- Trombley ”

Marie K. Yanna- Trombley , Pro se

Ph. 931 270-9688 1090 Spring Place Road ,

Lewisburg , Tennessee , 37091

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify.....

13 of 13

62a

Clerical err by District Court in Caption

- Pages 27a and 28a: the word “ STATES” in the

caption is incorrectly typed by the court.

Case 1:04-cv-00026 Document 75-1 filed 08/31/2005

Page | of 1

IN THE UNITED STATED | sic ] DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF

TENNESSEE COLUMBIA DIVISION

* * * € * * ££ KF KF K KF *

Case 1: 04-cv-00026 Document 74-1 Filed 08/31/2005

Page lof 12

IN THE UNITED STATED{ sic ] DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF

TENNESSEE COLUMBIA DIVISION

On

wy)

=

District Court Refers to Eppler’s un sworn

Declaration As Being An Affidavit

Page 32a. ....(Docket Entry No. 51, Attachment No. 6,

Eppler Affidavit at § 3 and Exhibit A thereto).

....(Docket Entry No. 51, Attachment

No.6 and Eppler Affidavit at 4 5, Exhibit B

Page 33a. ....(Docket Entry No. 51, Attachment No. 6

Eppler Affidavit at {4 ).

Page 34a. ....Carla Luster, a operations module advisor

pushed her. Id. At Attachment No. 61, Eppler

Affidavit at ¥ 6.

.... Id. Eppler Affidavit at 9 7, Exhibit C

thereto.

Page 35a. .... (Docket Entry No. 51, Attachment No. 6

Eppler Affidavit at § 9), but ....

Page 36a. .... (Docket Entry No. 51, Attachment No.6

Eppler Affidavit at 15).

CM/ECF - DC V2.5 (October 2005 ) - Docket Report

Page 7 of 11

02/14/2005 51 APPENDIX 1-12 filed by deft re

[48- 1] (km ) ( Entered: 02/14/2005 )

02/16/2005 52 NOTICE by deft Saturn Corporation of

filing original declaration of Sharon

Eppler (km ) ( Entered: 02/16/2005

CM/ECF - DC V2.5 (October 2005 ) - Docket Report

Page 8 of 11

02/16/2005 53 DECLARATION of Sharon Eppler

to replace the facsimile copy filed

with the Appendix ( Docket Entry

No. 51 ) to motion for summary

judgment { 48- 1] (km) (Entered:

02/16/2005 )

oN

wa

es)

This Supplemental Appendix to Petition for Writ of

Certiorari;

respectfully submitted, March 26, 2007,

mek 1 oy, ANS

Marie K. Yanna- Trombhey. Pro se

Ph. 931 270- 9688

1090 Spring Place Road

Lewisburg, Tennessee, 37091