Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MURGUIA, District Judge. Plaintiff Madella Henderson filed suit against defendants International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Local No. 31 of the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Workers of America (Local 31) (referred to collectively as “the Union”), and General Motors Corporation (GM). Plaintiff alleges that defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her race and sex in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.; her race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12001 et seq. This matter is before the court on defendants UAW and Local 31’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 76) and defendant GM’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 78). I. Facts Plaintiff is a 54 year-old African-American woman who has been employed for more than 25 years at the Fairfax assembly plant operated by GM. Plaintiff alleges she was the victim of pervasive harassment, discrimination, and retaliation during the course of her employment. Specifically, plaintiff contends she was harassed and treated differently in the terms and conditions of her employment than comparable white co-workers and male co-workers and union members. Plaintiff also asserts she has or is regarded as having disabilities to her neck, shoulders, arms, back, knee, and ankle and that she has been regarded as having or has a record of a mental impairment. Plaintiff claims she was harassed and treated differently in the terms and conditions of her employment than comparable nondisabled co-workers and union members and that defendants failed to assist plaintiff with her requests for reasonable accommodations. Plaintiff also alleges she was harassed and treated differently in the terms and conditions of her employment than younger co-workers and union members. With respect to plaintiffs claims against the Union, plaintiff claims that the Union harassed, discriminated, and retaliated against her on the basis of her race, sex, age, and disability. Plaintiff also alleges that her complaints of discrimination and harassment against GM were disregarded and that the Union failed to represent or assist her with regard to her complaints. Finally, plaintiff contends that the Union is liable for failure to take any action against GM’s alleged discriminatory practices. The record in this case in voluminous. Moreover, in response to defendants’ summary judgment motions, plaintiff has set forth collectively more than six hundred additional facts, some of which are duplica-tive, which plaintiff claims are evidence of defendants’ discriminatory conduct. The court will attempt to categorize the facts of this case. However, in some instances, plaintiffs factual assertions do not make clear on what basis plaintiff claims discrimination. With respect to those factual assertions, the court will include a section setting forth plaintiffs contentions in an effort to consider each and every allegation. The length of this decision is not necessarily an indication of the merits of plaintiffs claims. Rather, the court has attempted to fully consider every contention made by plaintiff. A. Specific Incidences of Alleged Discrimination 1. The Noose Incidents In September 1998, Mildred Woody, another African-American employee at the plant, found what appeared to be a noose at her work station. The noose was made from a piece of flexible rubber and the loop of the noose was six (6) inches in diameter. Supervisor Jim Miraglia came up the line toward the noose and said, “Millie, what’s the beef’ and tried to take the noose apart by pulling, and Woody screamed at him two or three times to put it down. Miraglia then threw the noose on her work station. Woody put in a committeeman call and later filed a grievance over the matter. Plaintiff, who was on a medical leave of absence when the incident occurred, never saw the noose hanging in the plant. Rather, plaintiff saw the noose that Woody had in her hand when Woody was on her way to labor relations. Plaintiff was in the plant in order to visit the medical department when this occurred. GM investigated the concerns raised by Woody and other employees, including plaintiff, regarding the noose, and determined that it had been made by Miraglia. Miraglia, who is originally from the east coast, explained that he was merely tying knots in a piece of material, and was unaware of the racial connotation associated with a noose. Despite GM’s conclusion that Miraglia’s action was not discriminatory, GM counseled Miraglia regarding the incident. In March 1999, employees discovered another apparent noose in the plant. GM investigated the incident, and the hourly employee who hung the item asserted that he did so in response to the ‘Y2K” crisis, and also to express concerns that the union “ought to be hung” for failing to accomplish certain measures with regard to profit sharing. The employee who hung the noose was suspended for one week. Plaintiff did not see the second noose, and only heard about it from co-workers. Several days later, GM discovered a length of rope in a material crib that had been detached from a spool and tied into a loop which appeared “noose-like.” Plaintiff did not see this third item, and again only heard about it from co-workers. GM investigated the incident but was unable to determine who had produced the rope or what its purpose was. Other individuals complained of the multiple nooses found at General Motors in 1998 or 1999. In the summer of 1999, GM received six EEOC civil rights complaints. Other than the noose incidents, plaintiff has never heard any member of GM management use a racial slur or make any other racially derogatory statement. 2.Allegations of Sexual Harassment Regarding Steve Clark During 1996 and 1997, plaintiff worked in the plant’s reliability department. Steve Clark was plaintiffs supervisor. During that time frame, plaintiff alleges that Clark made several comments to her that plaintiff contends constituted sexual harassment: 1. While plaintiff was jumping rope outside the plant during a break, Clark looked at her breasts and told her that he “love[d] to see [her] jump rope.” 2. Following plaintiffs request to leave early from her scheduled shift, Clark said to plaintiff. ‘You are looking in my eyes and I can tell by your eyes that you want me.” 3. During a power failure at the plant, Clark told plaintiff, “You know, you are becoming a real pain in my ass, that’s a good pain.” 4. During a discussion regarding plaintiffs assignment to a light duty position due to a medical restriction that precluded her from working overtime, Clark told plaintiff that he would “rather have [her] work eight hours [per day] than not at all.” Plaintiff reported the statements to Joelle Thomas, an African-American female who worked as the plant’s Equal Employment Opportunity coordinator. GM management investigated plaintiffs complaint and was unable to establish that discriminatory conduct had occurred. Approximately six months after the last of the four allegedly harassing comments, plaintiff observed Clark, without comment, place a styrofoam container with a piece of cake inside on her work station. At the same time, Clark gave a piece of the same cake to one of plaintiffs male co-workers who was standing nearby. Plaintiff reported the incident to plant manager Paul Marr, labor relations representative Pam Goodwin, and her union representative. In response to plaintiffs report, Marr met with Clark, and plaintiff had no problems with Clark thereafter. 3.The Security Incident As set forth in more detail below, an incident, referred to herein as the “security incident,” occurred on January 25, 1999. Plaintiff contends that the security incident was discriminatory. The incident involved primarily Cecil Oldham, who at the time was the plant’s supervisor of hourly employment. Plaintiff asserts numerous facts which plaintiff sets forth under the heading “Additional Facts Leading up to and Concerning the ‘Security Incident.’” With respect to many of these facts alleged by plaintiff, the court is not clear how they are related to the security incident or how they are otherwise relevant to plaintiffs claims of discriminatory conduct. However, the court considers plaintiffs factual contentions in ruling on this motion. July 27, 1998 — While the plant was closed because of a strike, plaintiff broke her ankle. Dr. F.M. Gilhausen treated plaintiff and completed attending physician statements for plaintiff to remain on disability. October 16, 1998 — Dr. Gilhausen provided a note that stated plaintiff could return to work on October 19, 1998, to light duty if possible-no climbing stairs, excessive standing, or walking. October 19, 1998 — Plaintiff reported to work to the plant medical department with her restrictions. Plaintiff was wearing open-toed sandals. Earlene Webb, R.N., told plaintiff to go home and that she could not release plaintiff to return to work because she was wearing sandals. There is no dispute that employees are not allowed to wear open-toed shoes while working on the plant floor. The Return to Work form that was completed by the medical department states: [plaintiff was wearing] open-toed shoes & unable to fulfill restrictions. With respect to plaintiffs restrictions, Nurse Webb recorded that plaintiff needed to have specific limitations for her restriction and that, until plaintiff got her restrictions clarified, plaintiff was not going to be allowed to return to work. Plaintiff was not released to return to work that day. October 28, 1998 — Dr. Robert Rondi-nelli examined plaintiff, and in a letter to GM, stated plaintiff was not able to resume her work duties unaccommodated at this time. Rather, plaintiff could return to work only if she was not required to climb, could wear high-top shoes or boots for support, and could work four to six-hour shifts. November 2, 1998 — Dr. Gilhausen released plaintiff to work full duty pursuant to forms Dr. Gilhausen completed on October 27 and October 30, 1998. Plaintiff and Oldham met, at which time Oldham told plaintiff she needed to obtain a doctor’s statement indicating what she was able and unable to do since Dr. Rondinelli and Dr. Gilhausen’s statements were apparently conflicting. November 3, 1998 — Dr. Gilhausen issued a return to work slip that stated “[Plaintiff] can not return to her present job driving a forklift. She is able to return to full duty at her previous job. She is to limit her climbing stairs, standing long periods of time and excessive walking. Restrictions apply until next appointment on 11/17/98.” November 4,1998 — Plaintiff returned to work with Dr. Gilhausen’s statement. Old-ham requested from plaintiff that her doctor provide an end date for plaintiff’s restrictions. Plaintiff was released to work at CTI for one day. On the bottom of the Return to Work form, Margo Gambill, staff nurse, wrote that plaintiff was allowed to work one day until the restrictions have an end date. November 5, 1998 — Nurse Gambill completed an ADAPT form that indicated plaintiff had provided Nurse Gambill with a proper Return to Work form from her doctor. The restrictions on the ADAPT form were: limited standing, less than two hours per day, and no operating cranes or power vehicles. November 15,1998 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that she was called into the Material Department office by Glen Benedick, a trainer in material, to see Ken Cavanaugh, Mike Daniels and Tim Wells. They asked, “Do you feel comfortable on the forklift? We do not want you to pose any harm to yourself as well as to others.” Plaintiff felt as though she was being cornered and badgered to the point that they wanted answers fast. November 15, 1998 — Dr. Gilhausen issued a Return to Work form that stated plaintiffs estimated return to work would be December 17, 1998. Plaintiff was placed at CTI through December 17, 1998. December 14, 1998 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that she spoke to Oldham about her benefits and he said this issue would be resolved Monday. The issue was apparently whether there was work available for plaintiff during October 19 through November 14 and, if there was, whether plaintiff would get paid sick leave. December 15, 1998 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that, when she arrived on Tuesday, Oldham made a phone call to a benefit representative in Detroit and told plaintiff that she should expect a letter of denial. Stan Berry threatened to call security on her. Oldham then asked plaintiff, “You want more time off?” Oldham then gave plaintiff a direct order to go to Labor Relations. He then called in Stan Berry, labor relations representative, who asked “Madella, are you on the clock? Who do you work for? Just have a seat.” Berry asked “how have you been making it being on sick leave?” and “do you have homeowners insurance? Maybe you should tap that supply.” January 4, 1999 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that she worked 8.8 hours that day and went to see Oldham, who said he was busy and she would have to see him some other time. January 5, 1999 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that she worked 2.0 hours, and then Oldham sent her home and refused to pay her. The court notes it is not clear from the record whether Oldham had the authority or responsibility to pay plaintiff. The Return to Work form dated 01/05/99 from Dr. Gilhausen, stated it was his recommendation that plaintiff be moved to another department that could accommodate her restrictions — no getting off and on a forklift, no standing for long periods of time, and no stair climbing. Three days later, Dr. Gilhausen returned her to work full duty with no restrictions. January 15, 1999 — Plaintiff received $.46 in pay. Plaintiff documented in her notes that, after the Martin Luther King celebration, she spoke with the plant manager Marr about her sick leave pay and her glasses. He asked who the two people were from management that were involved and plaintiff told him they were Oldham and Berry. Marr said he would get back with her on January 19. January 19, 1999 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that she was assigned permanently to W28 Trim Department, and sat there for 2 $ hours. January 21, 1999 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that she observed two employees sweeping floors by column X26B while plaintiff claims she was told that she had too many restrictions. January 25, 1999 — Plaintiff went to Old-ham’s office, to discuss the status of certain benefits information. When plaintiff entered Oldham’s office, he was meeting with Tom Meier, the plant’s supervisor of labor relations. Oldham asked plaintiff to leave, and indicated that if she did not do so, he would contact plant security. Rather than leave, plaintiff took a seat and demanded that Oldham immediately make a telephone call to determine the status of a “denial letter” plaintiff needed to appeal a decision regarding her benefits. Four to five members of the plant’s security department then arrived at Oldham’s office and reiterated the request that plaintiff leave, explaining to plaintiff that if she again failed to do so they would contact the local police department. The zone committee person Tom Kerr was called, and Kerr talked Oldham into making the call about the denial letter. Oldham made the call plaintiff had asked him to make, and she left his office and the plant on her own accord. At no time did any member of the security department touch plaintiff or escort her from the building. However, plaintiff believed that her life was threatened by the actions of GM management. January 26, 1999 — Oldham called the benefits department and stated that the claim should be paid. February 8, 1999 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that she was called into the office by supervisor Schmidt, who told her that she could not pull this job because other team members and leaders were complaining that they have to do all the work. Plaintiff passed through labor relations to see JD Hogan, and plaintiff contends Berry turned around and started to follow her. He stopped when she stopped. February 9, 1999 — Dr. Donald Knep-per completed a Supplementary Report for Sickness and Accident Benefits for plaintiff, stating that plaintiff was totally disabled from October 19 to November 4, 1998. Prior to this date, plaintiffs benefits had been denied because Oldham told the benefits department that there was a job available within restriction, but that plaintiff had to put closed-toe shoes on. Old-ham spoke with the benefits department on February 9, which stated the PMD would now certify there was no job available within restrictions. 4. Towing Incident On March 3, 1999, plaintiff walked outside to her car at lunch time and noticed a warning sticker on it that said she was illegally parked in the handicapped zone. Plaintiff did not move her car and, when she finished her shift, she discovered that her car had been towed. Plaintiff had a state handicap decal for handicap parking hanging in her car. At the time of the towing, plant policy required that, in addition to any state permit, an employee who wished to park in a designated handicapped space needed to obtain a separate permit issued by the plant. Plaintiff claims she was unaware of this policy. Plaintiff believes that the cars of five other employees were also towed from handicapped spaces that same evening, but she does not know the names of those individuals. Plaintiff does not know of any vehicle that was towed that had the required plant-issued permit, nor is she aware of any vehicle that did not have such a permit but was allowed to remain in a designated handicapped space on the night at issue. Following plaintiffs complaints about the towing incident, GM reimbursed plaintiff for the costs associated with the towing, and also amended its policy to eliminate the requirement for a plant-issued permit where an employee has a state handicapped parking permit. Although plaintiff initially testified that she did not know why a decision was made to have the cars towed, she later said she believed that Stan Berry ordered that her car be towed because he had just completed a disciplinary interview with plaintiff. 5. The Photograph Incident Approximately five years ago, plaintiff was showing some co-workers a photograph of her goddaughter, who is white. In response to a question from Wayne Haddock, a co-worker, plaintiff said that the baby was her “granddaughter.” In response, Haddock asked plaintiff, “What’s the joke?” Haddock and another co-worker, Norman Breedlove, then looked at the picture, and Breedlove pointed to a small black patch on the photograph and said “if this is the picture of the grandbaby, I can’t see anything here but the teeth.” Breed-love then said, “Next thing, you’ll be telling me this is a picture of your boyfriend. I can’t see anything here but the teeth.” Plaintiff reported Breedlove and Haddock’s comments to her supervisor Steve Clark, but she is not aware of any action Clark took in response. Plaintiff contends that, about a week later, Leonard Vansell, a business manager at the plant, said to plaintiff, ‘What’s the matter with you, are you drunk?” Plaintiff contends others heard the comment. Vansell then assigned plaintiff to a job and told her that Haddock would show her how to perform it, but Haddock said “he didn’t have to do a damn thing to show [plaintiff] anything.” Plaintiff reported Haddock’s use of profanity to Joelle Thorn- as and, to plaintiffs knowledge, no action was taken. 6. Glenn Matthews One of plaintiffs co-workers, Glenn Matthews, at one point worked as plaintiffs “team leader.” During the time he worked as plaintiffs team leader, Matthews indicated that he did not want to relieve plaintiff when she wanted to use the restroom or take other breaks. Plaintiff documented in her notes that, on February 18, 2000, Matthews said in a team meeting that he was running the meeting and did not have time to play games. Matthews told plaintiff that she could not write down comments and said his job was for emergency relief only. Matthews said he knew something was not right if a person continues to go to the restroom on schedule every night. At 11:05, plaintiff pulled the cord for a restroom break. Matthews did not answer, and the cord stayed on for 17 minutes. After Matthews transferred to another position, where he worked in close proximity to plaintiff, he frequently smoked a cigar when walking through the plant. Plaintiff, who has bronchitis, asked Matthews not to smoke around her. Matthews told plaintiff that he would “smoke his cigar whenever he got damn good and ready,” and called plaintiff a “lame bitch.” Plaintiff raised complaints about Matthews’s cigar smoking to GM management, and was told that plant rules allow Matthews to smoke throughout the facility. Management suggested plaintiff obtain a doctor’s excuse to allow her to avoid working around smoke. On March 8, 2000, plaintiff filed a police report regarding Matthews smoking a cigar in her face, refusing to leave, and then threatening her. She also completed a “Threats or Acts of Violence” form from GM. Regarding Glenn Mathews, plaintiff also contends: June 9, 2000 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Matthews was at the line where plaintiff worked, apparently to visit co-worker Jerry S. Plaintiff asserts there was no reason for Matthews’s visit. June 30, 2000 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Matthews came into her work area, lit a cigar, blew smoke, and stayed for ten minutes. GM points out that plant rules allow Matthews to smoke throughout the facility. July 31, 2000 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Matthews was in her work area with a cigar lit. June 6, 2000 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that, when Matthews came to the line, he looked at a book, got peanuts, and then laughed when plaintiff mentioned him to supervisor Minnefield. July 20, 2000 — Labor relations representative Pamela Goodwin called plaintiff into a meeting to speak with plaintiff about her disputes with Matthews. Goodwin informed plaintiff that Matthews had complained about her. Plaintiff walked out on the discussion to “enjoy [her] break.” Plaintiff believes Goodwin, who is also African-American, was speaking with her-in retaliation for plaintiffs calls to the GM Aware line. July 21, 2000 — Plaintiff met with her union representative, Sonny Lyman, regarding Matthews. Plaintiff claims that she was escorted to labor relations by security guards at the plant and put in a conference room with Lyman and Dee Andrews. During the meeting, Lyman said “any more problems in your department between you and Glenn Matthews and I will split you both up.” Lyman asked Dee to make a note that plaintiff would not talk and that Lyman was supposed to counsel plaintiff anytime she refuse a direct order. July 31, 2000 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Matthews was in her work area with a cigar lit. February 5, 2001 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Matthews expelled gas in two car jobs. Plaintiff raised complaints about Matthews to GM. Matthews also apparently complained about plaintiff, alleging that when he served as .her team leader she took excessive breaks and was now attempting to “cause trouble” and get him suspended. 7. Other GM Employees Juanita Williams, a black female, has been employed by GM for 30 years. Williams claims she was treated differently than other team leaders. Williams also contends that provisions were made for temporary employees, who are not regular GM employees and have no seniority, to work overtime. However, Williams offers no information regarding the period of time she was treated differently, who treated her differently, and the race, gender, or age of any other employee allegedly treated more favorably. Mildred Woody was employed by GM for 29 years before she retired in 2000. Woody contends that during the time she was employed at GM, it was common knowledge that the supervisors and management stuck together and defended each other. Woody also asserts that supervisor Valerie Lussier and Jim Miraglia treated black women differently, in that they nitpicked black women and they subjected black women to greater scrutiny of their work. Woody also complains of an instance in 1998 when Lussier refused to give Woody a hospital pass and in 1999 when Woody pulled the cord and no one responded. Jacqueline Carter is a black female who was employed by GM beginning in 1973. Carter claims that Lussier tried to get Carter to quit by monitoring her work, repeatedly calling Carter into the office to criticize her, and threatening Carter with write-ups. Carter also contends that Lus-sier repeatedly asked Carter when she was going to retire or why she didn’t retire and that Lussier told two fellow employees that Carter should retire. Carter asserts that Lussier certified black women more frequently than others. With respect to alleged favorable treatment of other employees, Carter claims that two white women, Judy Roberts and Joanne Arbing-ton, were not disciplined after popping rubberbands at men and talking all night long; a white female, Peggy Peterson, was not hassled after returning to work from surgery; a male co-worker, Paul Grice, was off work much of the time and never learned his job, but was never criticized by the supervisors; a male employee, Ron Lewis, missed checking numerous items on the cars and would have cars “shipped” with things wrong, but was not called into the office or written up. However, the record establishes that Grice received several written notices from supervisors regarding absences and careless workmanship, and Lewis was certified, counseled, and written up numerous times for careless workmanship or for failing to do his job properly. Carter filed a charge with the Kansas Human Rights Commission, wherein she alleged that she was not accommodated and forced into retirement because of her race, age, and disability. The court notes that Williams, Woody, and Carter each allege that they were denied certain job positions based on their race, age, or gender. The court omits their allegations, however, because none of the three identify with any specificity the positions for which they applied, nor do they identify any other employee who purportedly received such positions. More significantly, the court concludes that these allegations have no bearing on plaintiffs claims because plaintiff does not contend that she- applied for and was denied a particular position based on her age, race, or gender. With respect to any argument that these allegations support plaintiffs hostile work environment claim, the court further points out that plaintiff has not established that she was aware of the alleged improper conduct at the time plaintiff was herself allegedly subject to a hostile work environment. See Discussion, infra, Section III.B.l. B. Facts Relating to Plaintiffs ADA Claim 1. GM’s Medical Department Dr. Donald Knepper,,D.O. is an occupational'physician for GM who is in charge of the medical department. Margo Gambill has been a staff nurse at GM and is supervised by Dr. Knepper. Part of Gambill’s job as a nurse in the medical- department was to receive forms claiming work-related injuries. Gambill was not aware of a grievance that plaintiff had filed against the medical department-she was never asked any questions about 'the grievance and was never interviewed. Return to Work forms are used when an employee has been off work and is trying to get back to work. Those forms are first completed by the labor relations department and then they are, processed in the medical department. A Fairfax medical pass is used for an employee who is already at work and needs to go to medical for some issue. Those passes are initiated on the floor. Dr. Knepper’s responsibilities with regard to the ADAPT program are restrictions, whether or not he can fulfill those restrictions on the floor. The medical department at GM does not treat any employee’s personal medical conditions that are non-job related. In order to utilize the ADAPT program, the employee must first bring their doctor’s restrictions to one of the plant nurses. After conducting a fitness for duty examination, the nurse makes a determination whether the doctor’s restrictions should be honored. For the restrictions to be appropriate, the note from the employee’s doctor must have a diagnosis or reason for the restrictions, a beginning date, and end date. The nurses are allowed to exercise their discretion in making the determination of whether the restriction should be honored. If the nurse does not agree with the restrictions, the employee is placed back on sick leave and is sent back to their doctor to get the note clarified. If the nurse agrees with the restrictions, an ADAPT person, either Joe Biondi or Navita Johnson, presents the restrictions to the manpower committee on the floor, who then determines the job placement. If a person is unable to be placed on job through ADAPT, that employee would go back on sick leave. Employees with permanent medical conditions who can be placed in a job within their restrictions are returned to work for six months, and then they have to update their restrictions. 2. Plaintiffs Impairments Dr. Knepper is aware of physical impairments to plaintiffs back, neck, and shoulders that Dr. Gordon Thorn, D.O., evaluated for GM. Dr. Thorn also advised Dr. Knepper on February 19, 1998 that plaintiff had right carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Knepper is aware that plaintiff suffered a cervical strain and shoulder strain in April 1998, which GM accommodated for a period of time, and that plaintiff had shoulder problems while working at GM, which GM also accommodated at one time. Dr. Knepper also has knowledge that plaintiff suffered an ankle injury. Notwithstanding plaintiffs impairments, plaintiff lives alone in a home which she maintains and cleans herself. In addition to washing dishes, vacuuming, dusting and scrubbing her bathrooms on a weekly basis, plaintiff mows, weeds, and rakes her own lawn. Plaintiff also plants a garden every year and performs other landscaping activities. Plaintiff cooks at least one meal for herself on a daily basis. Plaintiff also drives her personal vehicle daily, and pumps her own gas. For the past two years, plaintiff has owned three dogs that she takes care of by walking, feeding, grooming, and cleaning up after them. As recently as two years ago, plaintiff had six Saint Bernards, all of which she also took care of by herself. Plaintiff cares for some of her grandchildren, who range in age from five to nine, overnight in her home, and also provides regular transportation for her mother. 3. Facts Plaintiff Alleges Constitute Disability Discrimination On August 20, 1996, and again on October 7, 1996, plaintiff was hit from behind by a car that was being loaded on the line because the person that was loading the line left the car in drive. Plaintiff does not contend that these incidents were purposeful. On November 4, 1996, plaintiff received a medical pass for her sore neck and shoulder from Nurse Gambill that stated “Let employee use a chair to do her job.” The next day, Steve Clark issued and signed a medical pass that stated, “No need for a chair.” April 14, 1997 — Plaintiff presented a Return to Work form signed by Dr. Wax-man restricting her to working an eight-hour shift. Plaintiff was released for limited duty. December 11, 1997 — Plaintiff received a medical pass from Jim Miraglia to go to medical" for pain in her shoulder. Plaintiff documented in her notes that, the following day, Miraglia singled out plaintiff and asked why she skipped a car. She stated that she did not skip any car. He said he counted every fifth car and plaintiffs punch should have been on it. Plaintiff told Miraglia he should have asked all of the other team members, but he did not. Plaintiff told Miraglia he owed her an apology. Miraglia said he did not'.. Plaintiff claims she was certified that night in retaliation. Plaintiff was suspended for the balance of her shift and two weeks for using abusive language toward Miraglia and refusing to accompany Miraglia to the labor relations department. Ten days after the discipline was issued, it was removed from plaintiffs record as a result of a grievance filed by plaintiff. Plaintiff does not recall whether she served the entire two weeks of the suspension, or whether she received any back pay for the time she was off. February 6, 1998 — Plaintiff received a medical pass for a sore shoulder at 4:50 p.m. Supervisor Valerie Lussier called the medical department to check on plaintiff at 5:25 p.m. March 27, 1998 — For the third time, plaintiff was hit by a ear from behind the car she was working on at her work station and sustained injury. Plaintiff does not contend that these incidents were purposeful. March 30, 1998 — Plaintiff received a medical pass from Lussier for a headache. Plaintiff went to medical and on the form, Nurse Gambill wrote, “no overhead reaching or bending to reach under dash. Return to restricted job for tonight. To see doctor tomorrow.” March 31, 1998 — Plaintiff’s chiropractor, Michael V. Merritt, D.C., wrote a letter advising GM that plaintiff should avoid work duties on March 31,1998 and April 1, 1998. Nurse Gambill excused plaintiff from work even though it is the policy of the medical department to not honor restrictions from a chiropractor. April 2,1998 — Plaintiff was sent to work with the restrictions of limited reaching with arms. Nurse Gambill completed the medical notice of restrictions for this ADAPT placement for plaintiff. April 29, 1998 — Robert Alen, D.C., released plaintiff to light duty, no lifting over five pounds, no sudden movements, and no bending, through May 8,1998. April 30, 1998 — Dr. Thorn recommended to continue light duty status until reevaluation in three weeks. Nurse Gam-bill needed more clarification on this restriction because she did not know what “light duty” meant. Nurse Gambill noted “no lifting over 20 lbs per Dr. Thorn” on the Medical Notice of Restrictions, and plaintiff was returned to her department under Steve Clark. Nurse Gambill would not sign the ADAPT form to send plaintiff to a different department because Gambill felt plaintiff could do her regular job, notwithstanding that the Union and the ADAPT representative disagreed "with Gambill. Supervisor Steve Clark told Gambill that plaintiff did not lift over 20 pounds in her regular job. That same day, Jim Miraglia questioned plaintiff as to why it was taking so long to get through medical. Plaintiff apparently had been counseled already that same day for loitering to and from the medical department. Miraglia asked plaintiff where her medical pass was, to which plaintiff replied by shrugging her shoulders. After asking plaintiff five times where her medical pass was, plaintiff threw it on the floor at Miraglia’s feet. Miraglia indicated in his notes that, later that day, plaintiff failed to check the turn signals on a vehicle. When questioned about it, plaintiff told Miraglia, “You check them, then.” May 1, 1998 — Plaintiffs chiropractor, Dr. Allen, recommended plaintiff be off work until May 4, 1998, due to severe muscle spasm and edema. That day, Steve Clark placed plaintiff at CTI. However, plaintiff admits that GM’s medical department is not obligated to follow restrictions imposed by chiropractors, and plaintiff has not demonstrated that this practice was not followed with regard to all employees. May 4, 1998 — Plaintiff received a medical pass for neck and shoulder pain. Plaintiff reported to medical and asked for something for the pain in her shoulder and neck. Nurse Gambill documented as her objective assessment that plaintiff was moving her head with conversation and when she signed in. May 5, 1998 — Plaintiff provided the medical department with a Return to Work form from her physician, Cedric Fortune, M.D., dated May 5, 1998, which released her on May 11,1998. May 11, 1998 — Dr. Thorn released plaintiff to return to work with the restriction of no lifting over 20 pounds, and plaintiff received a Return to Work form from GM on May 11, 1998. That day, Miraglia came down the line to see if plaintiff had a form for him. Miraglia said “Where is it— does Medical Department have it?” Plaintiff contends Miraglia used an unprofessional manner when addressing her. 4. Facts Plaintiff Alleges Constitute Harassment Regarding Her Medical Restrictions February 10, 1999 — Plaintiffs chiropractor, Dr. Allen, completed an Authorization for Absence form, which stated that plaintiff was excused from February 10, 1999 to February 12, 1999. It also stated: “Please, in order to aid her healing, [plaintiff] needs to have a lifting restriction to under 25 pounds and no lifting and twisting at the same time.” At the bottom of the form, it stated: “Restrictions not honored by medical from chiropractor. RTW.” — C. Cassidy, RN. February 19, 1999 — Dr. Gilhausen prepared a note that suggested plaintiff remain off forklift duty another three weeks, through March 12. Plaintiff documented in her notes that, when she arrived at work, medical said her supervisor called and said he didn’t have any work she could do. Stan Berry then came into medical and asked plaintiff if she was refusing to do her job. After Berry and Gary Shaw interviewed plaintiff, she returned to try to operate the tugger at work. On that same day, plaintiff received a medical pass documenting her swollen ankle and was returned to work. February 22, 1999 — Plaintiff documented that she had an appointment to see Dr. Jane Rathbun, but the doctor was out sick. The next day, plaintiff waited all day to see Dr. Rathbun. Supervisor Vince Schmidt told plaintiff that he did not have anyone to replace her so that she could see Dr. Rathbun. Nurse Gambill received plaintiffs February 19, 1999 claim for workers’ compensation for re-injury to right broken ankle. Plaintiff made another claim for workers’ compensation on February 19, 1999 for “lifting restrictions to under 25- pounds— reinjury.” February 25, 1999 — Plaintiff received a medical pass for joint soreness ankles, etc. Plaintiff was returned to work and had an appointment with Dr. Rathbun on March 1,1999. March 1, 1999 — Plaintiff received a medical pass for a swollen right ankle and sore neck/shoulders and saw Dr. Rathbun. Plaintiff received another medical pass later that evening for ice right ankle. March 2, 1999 — Plaintiff got a medical pass to discuss her shoulder and ankle issues and another pass for sore ankle, neck and shoulders. Plaintiff was returned to work with the comment written on the pass: Personal problem, no restrictions, no injury or illness found. The pass was signed by Dr. Rathbun. Plaintiff documented in her notes that the doctor said that, because her ankle injury occurred over a year ago and had healed satisfactorily, plaintiff did not have a medical problem, had.no restrictions, and that the medical department would not treat her for this problem again. March 3, 1999 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that she asked for a medical pass from supervisor Schmidt, and he said he had to call labor relations first because they said plaintiff was going down to medical too much. Plaintiff got the pass and went to medical. The nurses refused to treat plaintiff at first, but then treated plaintiff after the nurses measured plaintiffs ankle and concluded the ankle had swollen. March 4, 1999 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Schmidt was “bird dogging” plaintiff when he put her on a job and got her to do special jobs. Plaintiff does not specify what “special jobs” to which she was referring. April 14, 1999 — Plaintiffs psychiatrist, Dr. John Henderson, completed a medical form for sickness benefits that disabled plaintiff from work from March 30 until April 19, 1999 because of generalized anxiety disorder. Dr. Henderson completed supplementary reports extending plaintiffs disability until October 24,1999. October 22, 1999 — Dr. Henderson released plaintiff to return to work on October 25,1999, with no restrictions. October 29, 1999 — Plaintiff received a medical pass for neck and shoulder pain. Plaintiff was returned to work with no restrictions. Dr. Knepper received a fax enclosing plaintiffs IME report from Dr. Darnell, who stated plaintiff should not be required to work with her cervical spine in an extended position, nor should she be required to work overhead. Plaintiff asserts that the medical department refused to honor her permanent medical restrictions and that, specifically, Dr. Knepper refused to honor the restriction of no extended bending of the neck because he could not get anyone to- tell him what extended bending of the neck meant. The court notes that it is apparent from the record that Dr. Knepper was not aware of what Dr. Darnell meant by “extended bending of the neck,” and plaintiff does not point to any efforts she made to clarify the nature and extent of this restriction. In any event, plaintiff has not alleged that she was required to perform any work that required extended bending of the neck or suffered any injury or other damages as a result. Moreover, plaintiff has acknowledged that the plant medical department generally does not honor restrictions that are deemed “permanent,” and plaintiff has failed to allege or demonstrate that this practice was applied in a disparately discriminatory or otherwise improper manner. November 5, 1999 — Plaintiff received a medical pass indicating she was in a car struck from the rear. Plaintiff was returned to work. November 19, 1999 — Dr. Henderson wrote a note that plaintiff was “advised to remain out of work until 12/6/99.” December 6, 1999 — Plaintiff received her Fairfax Plant Return to Work form allowing her to return to full duty. December 9, 1999 — Dr. Henderson completed a disability benefits form and disabled plaintiff from work because of generalized anxiety disorder. Dr. Henderson noted, “Employee reports harassment on the job, creating stress.” December 10, 1999 — Plaintiff received a medical pass for a stiff neck and was returned to work. February 12, 2000 — Dr. Henderson examined plaintiff in the office and found her to be unable to work due to anxiety and tension headache. Dr. Henderson released plaintiff to return to work on February 19, 2002. In Dr. Henderson’s note, he stated plaintiff had been treated with psychotherapy and tranquilizers. February 25, 2000 — Plaintiff went to the medical department complaining of a headache. March 23, 2000 — Dr. Henderson completed a claim for sickness and accident benefits that disabled plaintiff from work from March 13 to April 10, 2000. Plaintiff points out that this followed Glenn Matthews’s threat that plaintiff reported to the police. However, plaintiff has failed to cite to any evidence to suggest that her health care provider substantively linked the leave of absence to the alleged threat by Matthews. April 18, 2000 — Plaintiff was supposed to return to work after being released by Dr. Henderson. Plaintiff documented in her notes that the medical department refused to let her return to work until the department talked to Dr. Henderson about the medications plaintiff was taking. Plaintiff was allowed to return to work on May 1, 2000. May 1, 2000' — Plaintiff documented in her notes that, when she arrived at work, nurse Tammy Brotherton gave her a smug look in the parking lot. September 1, 2000 — An Employee Statement of Injury was completed for plaintiff when she complained of sharp pains in her neck and shoulder when reaching down to pull a seat release. September 5, 2000 — Dr. Henderson stated in a note that “[plaintiff] is unable to work today and is being advised to remain off work until the disability is removed.” Plaintiff was released to return to work on September 8, 2000. November 9, 2000 — Plaintiff filed a claim for workers’ compensation for repetitive trauma. That same day, plaintiff received a medical pass for a sore neck and was returned to work. March 29, 2001 — Plaintiff received a medical pass for pain in her neck and arm and was returned to work. April 12, 2001 — Plaintiff suffered a mishap and her right hand and shoulder were swollen. After receiving treatment in the medical department, plaintiff claims she was accused of refusing to let the nurse look at her shoulder. The court notes that plaintiff never denies refusing to let the nurse look at her shoulder. April 17, 2001 — Plaintiff felt a pop in right shoulder at work and went to medical. Plaintiff filed a claim for workers’ compensation for this injury. May 16, 2001 — Plaintiff was on disability until May 2002. During this period of time, plaintiff was treated by the following physicians: a. Cedric Fortune, M.D., disabled plaintiff from work because of her rota-tor cuff syndrome. b. Stephen W. Munns, M.D., evaluated plaintiff June 29, 2001, for a right shoulder tear and possible left knee tear; on August 3, 2001, for a right rotator cuff tear and left medial compartment DJD, recommending sedentary, full-time sit down work, no lifting her right arm over 10-15 pounds. c. Dennison Hamilton, M.D., provided return to work recommendations for plaintiffs right shoulder tendinitis, rota-tor cuff, and left knee DJD, with restrictions on September 21, 2001, and permanent restrictions for her to return to work on October 31, 2001. August 13, 2001 — Plaintiff was seen by the medical department and was ultimately deferred until May 31, 2002. If an employee has a permanent restriction, Nurse Gambill generally defers them for six-month periods. November 1, 2001 — Medical department notes report that plaintiff had permanent restrictions of no overhead work, no pushing or pulling, and no lifting over 50 pounds. May 8, 2002 — Steven W. Munns, M.D., gave plaintiff permanent restrictions for her right rotator cuff tendinopathy of no overhead lifting, no regular lifting above waist, and no lifting over 20 pounds. May 28, 2002 — Plaintiff was released to work limited duty and placed at her same former reliability job through the ADAPT program, with the restrictions of no overhead lifting and no regular lifting of over 20 pounds above waist level. Sieg Siegele Incident Plaintiff contends that Sieg Siegele, a-general supervisor in the reliability department, discriminated against and harassed her by giving her a choice on one occasion between performing her job and seeking outside medical attention. Earlier that same day, plaintiff had gone to the plant medical department complaining of -pain and swelling in her arm, hand and shoulder. A plant nurse examined plaintiff, and apparently determined that she could return to work. Siegele based his directive that plaintiff return to work or seek outside medical attention on the information he had received from the muse. C. Allegations of Age Discrimination Plaintiff cannot recall any comment made by a member of GM management related to plaintiffs age. Plaintiff testified that some of her co-workers had made age-related comments, but plaintiff did not identify those employees, nor did plaintiff state what the comments were or when the comments were made. Plaintiff also contends that GM is hiring younger employees and “trying to push out” older employees. In support of this allegation, plaintiff asserts that employees at the Fairfax plant are arranging for their children and other relatives to be hired in place of older employees. D. Additional Facts Plaintiff Alleges Constitute Discriminatory Conduct The facts in this section do not themselves necessarily manifest the type of discriminatory conduct about which plaintiff complains. The court will therefore merely set forth plaintiffs factual contentions in chronological order without attempting to categorize the alleged discriminatory conduct. January 29, 1997 — -Plaintiff documented in her notes that she put in a call for her committeeman because there was an excessive fume buildup in her area. She pulled the cord to stop the line. Supervisor A Milan said he had a problem with plaintiff. April 4, 1997 — Plaintiff was suspended for the balance of her shift and three days for leaving the line without permission. Leaving the line without permission is prohibited by a plant rule of which plaintiff was aware. Supervisor Milan later told plaintiff that she had been suspended because she failed to remain on the line until being relieved by another employee. At the time of her suspension, plaintiff had a restriction from her personal physician limiting her to eight hours of work per day, which she had given to her union representative. Plaintiff claims that she showed the doctor’s statement to Milan before the start of the shift and that he did not take the doctor’s statement. However, during the disciplinary interview prior to the suspension, plaintiff was unable to show management a copy of the doctor’s note regarding the restriction because her union representative had apparently lost it. Although plaintiff brought an additional copy of the note to work the following day, she gave a copy only to her union representative. Plaintiff believes Milan suspended her in retaliation for “various issues,” including her complaints regarding supervisor Steve Clark. Although Milan never made any references to plaintiffs allegations against Clark, plaintiff believes he was familiar with them because “[a]ll supervisors are familiar with other supervisors.” Plaintiff believes that a white male employee, Wayne Haddock, left the line without permission, and was not disciplined for doing so. Plaintiff bases this belief on an incident one evening when she observed supervisor Milan looking for Haddock and apparently was unable to find him. The disciplinary action from April 4, 1997, was removed from plaintiffs record on December 22, 1997, after she had already been disciplined for the balance of her shift and two weeks. April 14, 1997 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Milan said she was responsible for wipers and “Wimpy,” a fellow coworker, wrote up every last car on which plaintiff worked. April 15, 1997 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that, when team leader Billy Bob Butler was going down the line to electrical, Milan yelled at plaintiff. Later that day, supervisor Leonard Vansell was looking for Wayne Haddock, a white male coworker, who disappeared after lunch, and plaintiff did the job alone. April 16, 1997 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that she was called into the office to talk to Milan and committeeman Gary Cramer, and was told she had one day to learn the job — “no more bullshitting.” April 17, 1997 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that supervisors Milan and Van-sell were standing by the team room watching plaintiff work. A few minutes later, supervisor Steve Clark joined them. Later that evening, Milan stood and watched plaintiff while he was talking with Haddock. April 21, 1997 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Wayne Haddock, who was the acting pool person at the time, relieved two people at station 1, two people at station 2 and then went to station 3 for relief and skipped plaintiff. April 26, 1997 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that plaintiff had been on sick leave prior to being laid off balance of shift and three days. During her leave, she learned that her co-workers had been working every Saturday starting at 4:00 instead of 4:30, and she was not informed of this at the time. Plaintiff spoke with Milan and stated she wanted to get paid. Milan said to file a grievance because he was not going to pay her and then accused her of not doing her job. June 2, 1997 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that, when supervisors Herdman and Milan switched shifts, Wayne Haddock started working overtime as soon as Herd-man came on the night shift. Plaintiff wrote in her notes that Herdman showed nothing but favoritism, toward the white male workers. June 9, 1997 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that supervisor Herdman whispered in co-worker Art Ross’s ear that Ross would work in audit until plaintiff left to go home, and then Ross would come back to replace her. June 10, 1997- — Plaintiff documented in her notes that, when she asked Herdman if she could work in audit, Herdman responded that there was not enough manpower for her to go to audit. June 12, 1997 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Herdman walked down the line and asked co-worker Art Ross to work audit. June 19, 1997 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that plaintiff could not get training for audit but arrangements were made for Haddock to work in audit. June 20, 1997 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Art Ross was called to audit, two people from the body shop came to replace Ross and Steve Abbington, and plaintiff remained on the same operation. August 1,1997 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Haddock went home after eight hours. Plaintiff claims that Herd-man was looking for Haddock and never found him. August 6,1997 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Haddock was not disciplined for leaving shift after eight hours, but was now team leader. August 11, 1997 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that co-worker Billy Bob Butler came back after an illness and left in eight hours. September 8, 1997 — Miraglia counseled plaintiff on an alleged discrepancy. Plaintiff does not assert that the counseling was not warranted. September 24,1997 — Miraglia counseled plaintiff for being late. Miraglia told plaintiff that she was due for balance of shift plus one week, but that he was going to forego the discipline in favor of counseling. Plaintiff does not assert that the counseling was not warranted. October 29, 1997 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Herdman said, “I really like your hair today. But I really shouldn’t have said that because I wouldn’t want you to write me up for sexual harassment.” November 30, 1997 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Haddock falsely accused plaintiff of slamming a door in his face. December 11, 1997 — Plaintiff was suspended for the balance of her shift and two weeks for using abusive language toward Miraglia and refusing to accompany Mir-aglia to the labor relations department. Plaintiff was escorted to labor relations. December 12, 1997 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Miraglia did not ask Larry Caldwell why he was late, or ask Dave Robinson why he was late on two days. May 4, 1998 — Plaintiff received counseling by Miraglia. Plaintiff does not assert that the counseling was not warranted. May 11, 1998 — Plaintiff received counseling by Miraglia. Plaintiff does not assert that the counseling was not warranted. May 12, 1998 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Miraglia said he needed to certify plaintiff because she did not half check a car. May 12, 1998 — Plaintiff was suspended for the balance of her shift and three days for refusing or fading to do her job. Plaintiff does not recall who issued the discipline or the circumstances surrounding it. The discipline was removed from plaintiffs record in August 1998 as a result of a grievance filed by plaintiff. May 13, 1998 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Miraglia called security to escort her to labor relations after plaintiff went to the medical department to use the restroom. Stan Berry, four security guards, and Miraglia waited outside. Berry said that plaintiff did not get permission to use the restroom, told plaintiff to have a seat in the office, and then slammed the door. GM controverts this fact by pointing out that plaintiff testified in her deposition she was suspended on May 12, 1998, and therefore could not have been subject to any alleged harassment in the workplace on May 13. May 15, 1998 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Art Ross did not report to work and plaintiff claims no one asked for a statement. May 20, 1998 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Ron Lewis arrived late for work and that nothing was said. June 1, 1998 — Plaintiff was transferred to the Material department. February 24, 1999 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that Joelle Thomas called and said it was impossible to set up any kind of meeting with plaintiff today or tomorrow. Plaintiff contends that “curiously,” at 5:09 p.m., plaintiff saw Vansell and Clark laughing and talking with Thomas. February 25, 1999 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that, when she called Thomas and asked her to put in writing what Thomas had .said the day before, Thomas refused and asked if plaintiff was going to get an attorney. March 5, 1999 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that, the day after she learned about the second noose found at the plant, she called Thomas, who said she would not respond to any individual complaints in writing but that she would respond to an agency such as the EEOC. August 20, 1999 — Plaintiff called the GM Aware Hotline. January 1, 2000 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that supervisor Clark took supervisor Siegele’s place since Siegele hurt his knee playing soccer. Clark was talking to co-worker Rambo while leaning over the rail between their work stations for ten minutes. January 10, 2000 — Plaintiff called the GM Aware Hotline and complained of discrimination. January 11, 2000 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that co-worker Jack Betts was transferred to salvage after he hurt his foot on a park brake. February 2000 — Plaintiff claims she was told she could not work outside of her “footprint,” an area designated by lines on the floor. Plaintiff asserts that everyone works outside their footprint when they are trying to keep up or get ahead on their work on the line. Plaintiff complained to the plant manager about differential treatment. February 17, 2000 — Plaintiff received a Notice of Disciplinary Action for allegedly “using abusive language.” Plaintiff does not assert that the discipline was not warranted. May 1, 2000 — Plaintiff called the GM Aware Hotline. May 1, 2000 — Plaintiff and Beverly Williams called the GM Aware Hotline. May 15, 2000 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that she was interviewed by Towanna Frazier from labor relations about an incident involving co-worker Linda Kindred. May 15, 2000 — Plaintiff called the GM Aware Hotline complaining about Steve Clark, Glen Matthews, and Linda Geróni-mo. May 18, 2000 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that she filed a 6A grievance for harassment for singling her out -with regard to the incident involving Linda Kindred. July 16, 2000 — Plaintiff filed a claim for workers’ compensation for “irritation, angry and severe stress” arising on July 20 and 21, 2000. GM points out that plaintiff dated her claim July 16, 2000, but stated in her claim that she did not suffer the injuries until July 20 and 21, 2000. August 24, 2000 — Plaintiff called the GM Aware Hotline. September 1, 2000 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that at the last break, coworker Rambo came to her work station and sat in a chair over plaintiffs purse and lunch. Plaintiff removed her belongings from her work station and returned to a car on the line. Plaintiff contends she started having an anxiety attack. January 8, 2001 — Plaintiff documented in her notes that union servicing representative Wilbur Neal returned her call regarding her unemployment payments that she had not received since being laid off on December 15, 2000. Plaintiff claims her co-workers had all started receiving their benefits before Christmas. Plaintiff told Neal that it would be nice if her union brothers could reimburse her. Plaintiff asserts that Neal said, “don’t be calling