Agard v. Mallinckrodt Enterprises, LLC
Filing
52
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motions for Summary Judgment, [Doc No.42], is GRANTED.A separate judgment in accordance with this Opinion, Memorandum and Order is entered this same date. 42 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 1/19/18. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LAMAR AGARD,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MALLINCKRODT ENTERPRISES, LLC, )
)
Defendant.
)
CASE NO. 4:16CV443 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, [Doc. No. 42]. Plaintiff opposes the motion and has filed a written
response thereto, to which Defendant has filed a reply. For the reasons set forth
below, the Motion will be granted.
Facts and Background
Defendant has, in accordance with the Court’s Local Rules, submitted a
Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts. Although Plaintiff has filed a
response to Defendant’s Statement, he fails to support his denials with any specific
references to admissible evidence in the record. Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 7-401(E) of this Court’s Local Rules,
Defendant’s facts are therefore deemed admitted. Local Rule 7-401(E) provides:
Rule 7 - 4.01 Motions and Memoranda.
(E) A memorandum in support of a motion for summary judgment shall
have attached a statement of uncontroverted material facts, set forth in a
separately numbered paragraph for each fact, indicating whether each fact is
established by the record, and, if so, the appropriate citations. Every
memorandum in opposition shall include a statement of material facts as to
which the party contends a genuine issue exists. Those matters in dispute
shall be set forth with specific references to portions of the record, where
available, upon which the opposing party relies. The opposing party also
shall note for all disputed facts the paragraph number from movant’s listing
of facts. All matters set forth in the statement of the movant shall be deemed
admitted for purposes of summary judgment unless specifically controverted
by the opposing party.
Facts and Background
Mallinckrodt Enterprises, LLC (“Mallinckrodt”) is a specialty
pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes
specialty pharmaceutical products.
Plaintiff Lamar Agard (“Agard”) is an African American male who was
hired by Mallinckrodt’s predecessor, Covidien, on January 14, 2013, as a Senior
Treasury Manager, Cash Management in the Finance Department. As a senior
treasury manager, Agard was responsible for cash management operations for the
United States and Latin America, including monitoring global liquidity,
authorizing payments and disbursements, ensuring payments were received,
ensuring bank accounts had the correct signatories, and performing other treasuryrelated functions.
At the time, Covidien was preparing to spin off Mallinckrodt into a standalone company and, in preparation, needed to substantially staff up its Finance2
Treasury function. The intention was that Agard would continue in the Senior
Treasury Manager-Cash Management role after Mallinckrodt spun off from
Covidien, which he did.
Agard had initially applied, but was not selected, for the Director of Risk
Management position; he was instead offered and accepted the Senior Treasury
Manager – Cash Management position. Einwalter offered Agard a Senior Treasury
Manager position, despite the fact that Agard had not applied for such position.
Although Agard did not have the ideal cash management background for the job,
Einwalter recognized Agard had some prior treasury experience and was
immediately available to join the Finance team.
In January 2013, Einwalter made the decision to hire Wescott as the Director
of Risk Management. Agard did not know who besides himself and Wescott had
applied for the Director of Risk Management position. Wescott had prior
experience in risk management at Sigma Aldrich, a life science and biotechnology
company, which gave her a subject matter background that poised her well for
Mallinckrodt’s area of business. Wescott was a well-respected professional in the
St. Louis area in terms of risk management. Wescott had prior experience working
for Covidien, which gave her unique insight into the Company’s particular
insurance risks. Agard had no prior experience working for Covidien.
3
In January 2013, Einwalter also hired Matt Mainer as Assistant Treasurer,
who would be Agard’s direct supervisor.
In June 2013, Mallinckrodt spun off from Covidien into a standalone
company.
In August 2013, Wescott resigned from the Director of Risk Management
position to accept a job opportunity at another company. Wescott’s resignation
occurred after the successful spinoff of Mallinckrodt, such that key initial risk
management functions had already been completed by Wescott. For example, all
lines of insurance had been renewed at the time of spinoff and would not have to
be renewed again until June 2014. Given the current size of the Company, the slow
time of year relative to risk management functions (i.e., insurance renewal), and
the capacity of the existing staff to absorb Wescott’s remaining duties,
Mallinckrodt determined the Finance-Treasury Department did not require a full
time Director of Risk Management such that it did not need to immediately fill
Wescott’s vacated position.
Mainer and Einwalter had prior experience managing insurance functions at
their prior companies (including Einwalter at Belden, a similarly sized company,
without having a dedicated Director of Insurance), so the Company believed the
function could be supported by existing staff, which it was.
4
Knowing Agard had some prior history in risk management and had
expressed an interest in the Director position, Einwalter and Mainer did give Agard
the opportunity to assume some of the Director duties on an interim basis, to show
he could satisfy the requirements of the position in the event the Company later
recreated the position. Agard was not given all of the duties of the Director of Risk
Management position and many of the duties that remained were assumed by
Mainer.
At the time, Mallinckrodt did not hire anyone to fill the Director of Risk
Management position.
In 2014 and beyond, Agard reported to Mainer who reported to Einwalter.
One of the key responsibilities of the Director of Risk Management position was
handling the yearly insurance renewal process; Agard was tasked with leading the
process for 2014. During the June 2014 insurance renewal process, both
Einwalter’s and Mainer’s experience with Agard was that he was not proactive,
failed to timely respond to requests from insurance companies, and failed to
effectively communicate with his Finance team members. Einwalter received
direct feedback from the Company’s primary insurance broker during the
insurance renewal process that Agard was “not responsive.” Mainer and Einwalter
received complaints from inside the Finance Department that Agard was not timely
5
in responding to communications. As a result of these issues, Mainer was forced
to step in and guide completion of the insurance renewal process.
Following Mainer’s and Einwalter’s concerns with Agard’s substandard
contribution during the insurance renewal process, they continued to note
shortcomings regarding his performance, and reflected the same in completing his
fiscal year 2014 Performance Review.
On October 23, 2014, Agard received his fiscal year 2014 Performance
Review with an overall rating of “Partially Achieving” – this was the second
lowest possible rating. Agard’s Performance Review included, without limitation,
the following negative comments:
Under the performance goal of assuming interim role of Risk Manager until
Director of Risk is hired:
- “Rating: Partially Achieving”
- “On a day to day basis Lamar is responsible for claims management, loss
control site visits oversight, fielding daily questions and requests including
certificates of insurance, premium coordination and allocation and
acquisition integration. In several of these areas I have received negative
feedback about Lamar’s performance including lack of visibility and
communication and general lack of expected responsiveness.”
- “Overall he has made some good contributions in this area, specifically
becoming the primary risk management contact and assisting in a successful
renewal process. Where his performance has not met expectations is lack of
communication of clear deadlines and accomplishment of those deadlines. In
addition there has been negative feedback regarding his responsiveness to
requests in this area.”
6
Under the performance goal of driving automation of the payment process in
LATAM, significantly eliminating or reducing manual payments:
- “Rating: Partially Achieving”
- “Lamar did work with Barb Branneky to optimize as the manual payment
process and support the automation within Latin America. The automation
project was unsuccessful due primarily to issues between IT, KPIT, and
Citibank. As the senior treasury person involved in the project, Lamar could
have been more proactive to escalate issues to senior management.”
Under the performance goals section summary:
- “Rating: Partially Achieving”
- “Areas he needs to improve on are establishing and meeting deadlines for
various projects and tasks, being more proactive in driving results and
finally improving his responsiveness within our department and cross
functionally.”
Under the development goal of assuming the risk management role:
- “Mixed results here. Opportunity to manage a major project (insurance
renewal) and although overall results were good, management of the process
was a little disjointed.”
Under the cultural hallmark of being engaged:
- “Mixed results here. Lamar was engaged and willing to assume interim risk
manager role which was appreciated however level of engagement was
questionable at times especially given negative feedback received cross
functionally on lack of responsiveness.”
Under the cultural hallmark of being competitive:
- “The feedback that he lacks a sense of urgency also is not congruent with
this hallmark.”
Under the cultural hallmark of being collaborative:
7
- “Given negative feedback cross functionally about Lamar’s lack of
responsiveness he is failing to meet expectations in this category.”
Under the cultural hallmark of being high performing:
- “Lamar’s major accomplishment in 2014 was his efforts on the insurance
renewal which was successfully completed on time. However this was the
basic requirement and where he missed a real opportunity was taking full
ownership of the process. He was a key contributor but really could have
taken control and demonstrated more leadership here. In addition, feedback
about his lacking the proper sense of urgency and poor responsiveness are
inconsistent with our high performing culture.”
Under the cultural hallmark section summary:
- “Rating: Partially Achieving – Individual behaviors need improvement to
meet Mallinckrodt expectations on several cultural hallmarks.”
- “Lamar is under performing in several key cultural hallmark areas. To
receive negative feedback from within our department and cross functionally
about his poor responsiveness and lack of the proper sense of urgency is
disappointing.”
Agard did not contest or complain about his Performance Review to Human
Resources, Legal, or the Company hotline.
On October 23, 2014, Agard was also placed on a 30 Day Action Plan –
Performance (“Action Plan”). The Action Plan outlined two areas within Agard’s
performance that needed immediate attention and improvement: (1) responsiveness
and sense of urgency” and (2) “follow through and completion of requested tasks.”
The Action Plan stated that if measurable improvement was not achieved within
the next 30 days, Agard would proceed to a formal performance improvement
plan. Agard signed the 30-Day Action Plan without making any written objections.
8
Agard did not contest or complain about his Action Plan to Human Resources,
Legal, or the Company hotline.
In December 2014, Mainer resigned to pursue a promotion to Treasurer at
another company.
Following Mainer’s resignation, Agard began reporting directly to
Einwalter. Einwalter’s concerns with Agard’s performance continued into 2015,
as Agard continued to demonstrate low productivity and initiative, and seemed to
struggle to find his place in the Finance Department.
In 2014, Mallinckrodt underwent substantial merger and acquisition activity
that fundamentally reshaped the Company. Mallinckrodt acquired two companies
in 2014, Cadence Pharmaceuticals and Questcor Pharmaceuticals, which increased
the size and scope of the Company, and conducted due diligence on a third
company, Ikaria Inc. (“Ikaria”), which would ultimately be acquired in late-spring
2015.
Given the substantially increased size of the Company and the revised needs
of the Finance Department relative to risk management, including the desire to
consider higher level insurance functions (e.g. investigating enterprise-wide risk
management and captive insurance opportunities), Mallinckrodt determined it was
necessary to recreate a dedicated Director of Risk Management position and devote
greater resources to the role.
9
Mallinckrodt posted the recreated Director of Risk Management position
from January 6, 2015 to February 17, 2015, for both internal and external
candidates. Agard never submitted an application for the recreated Director of Risk
Management position, despite knowing the Company was accepting applications
from both internal and external candidates. Agard never applied for the Director of
Risk Management position posted in January 2015.
On March 2, 2015, Einwalter hired Mark Huddleston (Caucasian) for the
position. Huddleston had over 15 years of prior experience as a Director of Risk
Management. Huddleston most recently worked at Sigma Aldrich, a local life
sciences company, giving him subject matter experience that poised him well for
the Company’s area of business. Given Huddleston’s experience, Einwalter
believed he was most experienced for the tasks facing the new Director of Risk
Management, as the recreated Director position would have greater responsibilities
than the former Director position and would require the ability to handle higherlevel insurance functions.
Agard did not have the same level of experience as Huddleston. He does not
even know what Huddleston’s qualifications or background are. Agard was not
aware of who else applied for or interviewed for the position.
Following Mainer’s resignation, Mallinckrodt posted the Assistant Treasurer
position on January 7, 2015 for both internal and external candidates. Agard never
10
applied for the posted Assistant Treasurer position. Agard was not aware of who
else interviewed for the position and did not know who was hired for the position.
Einwalter ultimately hired Ravi Iyer (Indian) for the position. Agard was not aware
of Iyer’s qualifications, was not involved in evaluating the same, and did not know
who made the hiring decision.
Mallinckrodt acquired Ikaria around April 2015. Iyer had held the Assistant
Treasurer position at Ikaria for approximately 7 years. Einwalter believed Iyer’s
direct experience in the role gave him unparalleled insight to serve as Assistant
Treasurer of the combined companies.
Agard had no prior comparable experience. Agard’s experience as treasurer
for a school board was very different in terms of “job experience” from having
experience as treasurer of an international, publicly-traded company.
In 2015, Mallinckrodt was undergoing an aggressive company-wide
restructuring initiative to increase value and productivity while reducing costs
across every function, including the Finance Department. As part of the
restructuring, Mallinckrodt eliminated three positions from the Finance
Department due to their lack of sufficient work to justify maintaining the full-time
positions: (1) the Manager, Pharma Strategy & Commercialization, International
position; (2) the Director, Finance and Administration position; and (3) the Senior
Manager, Treasury, Cash Management position held by Agard. Scotty Sengsavang
11
(Asian) held the Manager, Pharma Strategy & Commercialization, International
position and Keith Huels (Caucasian) held the Director-Finance and
Administration position.
Einwalter made the decision to eliminate Agard’s position in consultation
with Christine Williams in Human Resources. Agard’s employment terminated on
June 26, 2015. Agard was included because of his low productivity and
performance issues, and the lack of continuing need for his role, given the ability
to absorb his functions into existing Finance Department positions.
Agard has no idea what went into the decision to select his position for
elimination. Agard believes his job duties continued to be performed by the
Finance Department following his departure and is not aware if anyone was hired
to replace him. Agard’s duties were absorbed by other Finance Department staff,
including any remaining insurance duties going to Huddleston (as the new Director
of Risk Management) and daily cash management duties going to two Finance
Department analysts who previously assisted Agard (Frank Ricchio and Elan
Fredman). He was not replaced. To date, Mallinckrodt has not recreated the
eliminated cash manager position.
Einwalter was not involved in any employment decision relative to John
Moten or Thomas Brown; these employees never reported to him.
Mallinckrodt hired Elan Fredman on May 6, 2013 into the Finance-Treasury
12
Department into an analyst-level position. Einwalter selected Fredman because he
believed Fredman was the most qualified for this position because of his history in
finance roles at Goldman Sachs in New York as well as a spin off from Emerson
Electric in St. Louis.
Mallinckrodt hired Frank Ricchio on June 22, 2013 into the FinanceTreasury Department into an analyst-level position. Einwalter selected Ricchio
because he believed Ricchio was the most qualified because he had the necessary
skill set, was interested, and available.
Agard filed a charge of discrimination on July 15, 2015 with the Missouri
Commission on Human Rights. Under the section “Date(s) Discrimination Took
Place” on his charge of discrimination, Agard listed January 2015 (as the earliest
date) through June 2015 (as the latest date). Under the section outlining the
particulars of the charge of discrimination, Agard stated: “Complainant alleges he
was denied the positions of Director of Risk Management and Assistant Treasurer
… due to his race, black. Complainant also alleges that he was terminated in
June 2015 due to discrimination due to his race, black.”
When pressed in his deposition for evidence that he was not hired for any
particular position and was laid off because of his race, Agard could not point to
specifics but rather claimed generally and nebulously that Einwalter held a
discriminatory animus towards African Americans – stating, for example, “he
13
could sense” Einwalter was not interested in hiring a certain African American
candidate and “you could tell” Einwalter did not have the same respect for African
American employees.
Standard of Review
The Court may grant a motion for summary judgment if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The
substantive law determines which facts are critical and which are irrelevant. Only
disputes over facts that might affect the outcome will properly preclude summary
judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91
L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Summary judgment is not proper if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
A moving party always bears the burden of informing the Court of the basis
of its motion. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party discharges this
burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts demonstrating that there
is a dispute as to a genuine issue of material fact, not the mere existence of some
alleged factual dispute. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247. The nonmoving party may not
rest upon mere allegations or denials of its pleadings. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256.
14
In passing on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the facts
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all justifiable inferences
are to be drawn in its favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. The Court’s function is not
to weigh the evidence but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Id.
at 249.
Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts and inferences in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the pleadings, the discovery and
disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.
In order to survive a motion for summary judgment, “the nonmoving party
must ‘substantiate his allegations with sufficient probative evidence [that] would
permit a finding in [her] favor based on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or
fantasy.’” Barber v. C1 Truck Driver Training, LLC, 656 F.3d 782, 801 (8th Cir.
2011) (quoting Putman v. Unity Health Sys., 348 F.3d 732, 733–34 (8th Cir. 2003))
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Discussion
Plaintiff brought this employment discrimination action alleging that he was
discriminated because of his race (African American) and in retaliation for
exercising his rights. The Court has previously dismissed the retaliation claims.
15
See, Order dated December 7, 2016, granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Counts III and parts of Count IV. Plaintiff’s remaining Counts are for race
discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §1981 (Count I); race discrimination under Title
Vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Count II);
discrimination under Mo.Rev.Stat. § 213.055, (Count IV). Plaintiff claims that the
discrimination occurred in declining to hire him as Director of Risk Management
in January 2013, declining to hire him as Director of Risk Management in August
2013, declining to hire him as Director of Risk Management in January 2015,
declining to hire him as Assistant Treasurer in January 2015, and laying him off
during a companywide reduction in force in June 2015.
Failure to Hire Claims
2013 Claims
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Title VII and Missouri Human Rights Act
claims for the failure to hire him as Director of Risk management fail because he
did not exhaust his administrative remedies in a timely manner.
In order to initiate a claim under Title VII and the MHRA a party must
timely file a charge of discrimination with the administrative agency and receive a
right-to-sue letter. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(e)(1); Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v.
Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 109–10 (2002); Stuart v. General Motors Corp., 217 F.3d
621, 630 (8th Cir.2000). Plaintiff was required to file his charge of discrimination
16
within 300 days of the allegedly discriminatory occurrence under Title VII and
within 180 days under the MHRA. Holland v. Sam's Club, 487 F.3d 641, 643 (8th
Cir.2007) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(e)(1) and Mo.Rev.Stat. § 213.030).
Plaintiff filed his charge of discrimination on July 15, 2015. It did not allege
a continuing action such that it might cover the claims of discrimination which
Plaintiff claims occurred in 2013. Plaintiff’s claims are therefore time-barred.
McDonnell-Douglas Analysis
In order to survive a motion for summary judgment on a discrimination
claim,
a plaintiff must either present admissible evidence directly indicating
unlawful discrimination, or create an inference of unlawful discrimination
under the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Cherry
v. Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc., 829 F.3d 974, 976 (8th Cir. 2016).
[Plaintiff]does not contend that he provided direct evidence of
discrimination, and the district court proceeded under the McDonnell
Douglas framework. Under this framework, if an employee carries his
burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden then
shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason
for the adverse employment action. Id. “If the employer meets this burden of
production, the employee must then ‘prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the employer were not its
true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination.’ ” Grant v. City of
Blytheville, Ark., 841 F.3d 767, 773 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Reeves v.
Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147
L.Ed.2d 105 (2000)).
Rooney v. Rock-Tenn Converting Co., No. 16-3631, 2018 WL 326049, at *3 (8th
Cir. Jan. 9, 2018).
17
2015 Director of Risk Management
It is undisputed that Plaintiff did not apply for the Director of Risk
Management in January 2015. The position was posted internally and externally
for 6 weeks. Plaintiff’s self- serving claims that his interest in the position was
well known and that he was performing the duties of the director do not overcome
the obligation to apply for the position. DePriest v. Milligan, 823 F.3d 1179, 1186
(8th Cir. 2016).
2015 Assistant Treasurer Position
Likewise, because Plaintiff did not apply for the Assistant Treasurer Position
in January 2015, he cannot now claim he was the victim of discrimination. See
supra.
June 2015 Layoff
Plaintiff argues that he was discriminated against due to his race when he
was laid off during the companywide reduction in force.
In order to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII
and Section 1981, Plaintiff first must establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
Jackson v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. ., 643 F.3d 1081, 1086 (8th Cir.2011), cert.
denied, 132 S.Ct. 1075 (2012). “To establish a prima facie case for race
discrimination, a plaintiff must show (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) he
met his employer's legitimate expectations, (3) he suffered an adverse employment
18
action, and (4) the circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination (for
example, similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated
differently).” Gibson, 670 F.3d at 853–54 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). If the plaintiff succeeds in establishing his prima facie case, “the
defendant may rebut the prima facie case by articulating a non-discriminatory
rationale for its action.” Id. at 854 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Plaintiff then must prove the defendant's proffered rationale was merely pretext for
discrimination, and may do so “by adducing enough admissible evidence to raise
genuine doubt as to the legitimacy of [the defendant's] motive.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
The MHRA similarly prohibits employers from discriminating against
individuals based upon race. See Mo.Rev.Stat. § 213.055. “To establish a prima
facie case of discrimination in the workplace, a plaintiff must show that he (1) was
a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified to perform his job; (3) suffered an
adverse employment action; and (4) was treated differently from a similarly
situated person not a member of the protected class.” Stull v. Fireman's Fund Ins.
Co., 2012 WL 3815647, at *6 (E.D.Mo. Sep. 4, 2012), citing Ressler v. Clay
County, 2012 WL 2285980, at *7 (Mo.App. Jun. 19, 2012). The fourth element
also may be proved by “other evidence that would give rise to an inference of
19
unlawful discrimination.” Ruppel v. City of Valley Park, 318 S.W.3d 179, 185
(Mo.App.2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The Missouri Supreme Court has determined that the MHRA may offer
greater discrimination protection than that available under federal standards. See
Daugherty, 231 S.W.3d at 818–19. Missouri courts thus no longer apply the
McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis, instead applying a standard derived
from Missouri's approved pattern jury instructions pursuant to which an MHRA
discrimination claim survives summary judgment, “if there is a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether [the protected characteristic] was a ‘contributing factor’
in [defendant's employment] decision.” Id. at 820; see also McCullough v.
Commerce Bank, 349 S.W.3d 389, 397 (Mo.App.2011). “This standard offers
greater protection than the federal one because a contributing factor need only have
a part in producing the [discriminatory] effect.” Stull, 2012 WL 3815647, at *7
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Plaintiff fails, however, to present his prima facie case because the record
establishes that he was not meeting Defendant’s legitimate expectations. Although
Plaintiff testified that he was performing all of the duties of the director, the record
clearly disputes this claim. Plaintiff’s evaluation shows that his superiors had
concerns regarding his productivity and lack or responsiveness. Plaintiff’s feeling
that his supervisor held a racial animus are insufficient to overcome the evidence
20
that Plaintiff’s layoff was the result of companywide restructuring, particularly in
light of the evidence that among other laid off employees in the Finance
Department were an Asian employee and a Caucasian employee.
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing analysis, the record clearly establishes that there
are no genuine disputes as to any material facts and that Defendant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motions for Summary
Judgment, [Doc No.42], is GRANTED.
A separate judgment in accordance with this Opinion, Memorandum and
Order is entered this same date.
Dated this 19th day of January, 2018.
________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?