Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

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

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

Boone v. Clark Foods, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division

December 28, 2017

NANINE BOONE, Plaintiff,
v.
CLARK FOODS, INC., IHOP 36-144, SUNSHINE PARTNERS, and IHOP CORPORATION, Defendants.

          ORDER

          HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE

         Plaintiff Nanine Boon filed this pro se action against Defendants Clark Foods, Inc., IHOP 36-144[1], Sunshine Partners, and IHOP Corporation, alleging that during her employment as a server at an IHOP restaurant located at 181 West Hill Avenue in Valdosta, Georgia she was discriminated against on the basis of her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. Defendants Sunshine Restaurant Partners, LLP (“Sunshine Partners”) and International House of Pancakes, LLC (“IHOP”)[2]now move for summary judgment, arguing that they never employed Plaintiff and were not involved either in her discharge or in any of the events that form the basis for her ADEA claims. After reviewing the pleadings, briefs, affidavits, and other evidentiary materials presented, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 22).

         I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

         Summary judgment may be granted only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “The moving party bears ‘the initial responsibility of informing the . . . court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.'” Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co., 357 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (internal quotations omitted)). The burden then shifts to the non-movant, who must go beyond the pleadings and present affirmative evidence to show that a genuine issue of material fact does exist. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986). A fact is material if it is relevant or necessary to the outcome of the case. Id. at 248. A fact is not material if a dispute over that fact will not affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Id. An issue is genuine when the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. at 249-50.

         II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Nanine Boon began working as a server at the IHOP restaurant located at 181 West Hill Avenue in Valdosta, Georgia on July 5, 2000. (Doc. 1-1, p. 1; Doc. 1-3, p. 2). Plaintiff worked without incident until January 2009, when Defendant Clark Foods, Inc. (“Clark Foods”) hired Jessica Pitts to manage the IHOP store where Plaintiff was employed. (Doc. 1-2, p. 1). Plaintiff alleges that Pitts “engaged in willful and knowledgeable age discrimination” by:

a. making comments to Plaintiff that Plaintiff was at an age to retire;
b. asking Plaintiff specifically if Plaintiff was OK, if Plaintiff was able to work Plaintiff's station;
c. making comments to Plaintiff regarding Plaintiff being ‘slow' and unable to perform needed server duties, such as carrying racks of glasses;
d. assigning server small, low-income stations, despite Plaintiff's protest;
e. cutting Plaintiff's days from regular 5 to 4, despite Plaintiff's protest;
f. systematically, week by week, scheduling fewer hours or work for Plaintiff, despite Plaintiff's protest.

(Doc. 1-2, p. 1-2). Plaintiff further alleges that Pitts regularly made other age-related remarks, such as describing meals listed on the restaurant's senior menu as “an old people's meal” and that she singled out and treated Plaintiff differently from her younger co-workers. (Doc. 1-2, p. 2). Pitts also never offered Plaintiff the opportunity for advancement. (Id.).

         Clark Foods terminated Plaintiff on March 3, 2013 for allegedly stealing two trash bags. (Doc. 1-2, p. 1; Doc. 1-3, p. 2). Plaintiff, who was 72-years old at the time of her termination, contends that other staff members of a younger age were not terminated for similar conduct. (Doc. 1-3, p. 2). For example, Plaintiff claims that Linder Mathis, a 53-year old server, regularly provided her grandchildren and other family members “with IHOP materials, with drinks in Styrofoam cups, straws and lids to take with them” at no charge. (Doc. 1-3, p. 4). She further contends that Paige Rikard, a 26-year old server, ate for free ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

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

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