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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_2368%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 2006

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_2368%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.