Fred Davis v. FCA US

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 17a0107n.06
No. 15-2219
FILED
Feb 14, 2017
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FRED DAVIS, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE
FCA US LLC, ) EASTERN DISTRICT OF
) MICHIGAN
Defendant-Appellee )
)
BEFORE: MERRITT, BATCHELDER, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Fred Davis, an African American, brought
claims against his employer, FCA US LLC (formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC), alleging
race discrimination pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e and 1981, and Michigan’s Elliott-
Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”), M.C.L. 37.2012 et seq., as well as claims of breach of
contract and promissory estoppel. Davis claims that these violations arose from Chrysler’s
selling a car dealership that he had hoped to own, and its treatment of him before, during, and
after that sale. We AFFIRM the decision of the district court.
Prior to this litigation, Chrysler promoted Davis to the position of general manager of a
Chrysler dealership in Atlanta, Georgia. At that time, Chrysler had a program that was designed
to increase minority ownership of dealerships. Through that program, Chrysler provided
individuals with long-term support and capitalization to help them “operate to own” a Chrysler
No. 15-2219, Davis v. FCA US LLC
dealership. Davis worked for Chrysler for nearly twenty-five years before it promoted him to
general manager of the Atlanta dealership. Davis wanted to be an operator of that dealership as
part of Chrysler’s program. However, that dealership had long been struggling financially. Soon
after Davis became the general manager, Chrysler decided to sell the dealership, foreclosing the
possibility that he might own it.
The district court issued a memorandum and order, granting Chrysler’s motion for
summary judgment on Davis’s contract claims and deferring consideration of his racial
discrimination claims due to some controverted facts. In a supplement to the memorandum and
order, the district court granted Chrysler’s motion for summary judgment on Davis’s race
discrimination claims because it found that Davis had failed to establish that another Chrysler
employee was similarly situated to him. It also found that Davis had failed to proffer evidence to
establish that Chrysler’s stated reasons for its decisions were false or a pretext for race
discrimination. Davis appeals only the district court’s dismissal of his race discrimination claim.
After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we are
convinced that the district court did not err in its conclusions. The district court’s opinion
carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised and clearly articulates the
reasons underlying its decision. Thus, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would
serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we
AFFIRM.
-2-