Alred v. Lilly

771 F.Supp.2d 356

111 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1596

Catherine M. ALRED, Plaintiff,

v.ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, and Michael Anderson, Defendants.

C.A. No. 08–092–LPS.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

March 22, 2011.

Matthew F. Boyer, Esquire, and Timothy M. Holly, Esquire of Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP, Wilmington, DE, for Plaintiff.Ellen C. Boshkoff, Esquire; Craig M. Borowski, Esquire; and David S. Wagner, Esquire of Baker & Daniels LLP, Indianapolis, IN, M. Duncan Grant, Esquire, and James Harry Stone Levine, Esquire of Pepper Hamilton LLP, Wilmington, DE for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

STARK, District Judge:

Presently before the Court is a Motion For Summary Judgment (D.I. 47) (hereinafter “Motion”) filed by Defendants Eli Lilly and Company and Michael Anderson. For the reasons discussed, the Motion will be denied.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

Plaintiff Catherine M. Alred (“Alred”) initiated the present action against Defendants Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) and Michael Anderson (“Anderson”) alleging that her employment was terminated as a result of unlawful age discrimination and retaliation.

Alred was hired by Lilly as a Senior Sales Representative on May 24, 2001. (D.I. 49 at 32) She was assigned to the Baltimore District, which included the State of Delaware. (D.I. 49 at 33–34) Alred received three straight District Achievement Awards from 2001 to 2003 and garnered positive performance reviews from two different District Managers. (D.I. 53 at 1–5)

Alred was promoted to Senior Sales Representative II in 2005. (D.I. 53 Ex. 5) Then, in September 2005, Alred was involved in an automobile accident. (D.I. 49 at 22) Alred testified in her deposition that the accident caused injuries which hindered her ability to stand or sit for lengthy periods of time, but she added that—despite considerable pain—she worked without any substantial missed time. (D.I. 49 at 22)

In the meantime, on January 2, 2006, Defendant Anderson was promoted to the position of District Manager for the Baltimore East District. (D.I. 54 Ex. 50 at 36–37) Plaintiff Alred first met Defendant Anderson at a sales meeting on January 4, 2006. Alred testified that Anderson commented at the meeting that if he had known so many women would be on his sales team, he would not have taken the job; he added that he must take action to achieve a “fully productive team.” (D.I. 49 at 58, 60; D.I. 56 at 3)

At approximately the same time, Defendant Lilly began a new campaign known as “Sales Force of the Future.” (D.I. 54 Ex. 50 at 30–34) In conjunction with this new campaign, Alred was assigned to work in a “triad” with two other sales representatives, Kelly Alteri (“Alteri”) and Christine Blackmon (“Blackmon”). The three shared the same territory, customers, and products, and were equally responsible for sales results. (D.I. 54 Ex. 50 at 72; D.I. 49 at 82–83)

On January 15, 2006, Anderson for the first time rode along with Alred on sales calls. (D.I. 54 Ex. 49 at 66) Alred contends that Anderson questioned her regarding her automobile collision and how much longer she intended to work. (D.I. 49 at 66–67) Anderson testified in his deposition that Alred demonstrated weak face-to-face execution with customers. (D.I. 54 Ex. 50 at 77–78)

Later in January 2006, Anderson organized a business meeting with Alred, Alteri, and Blackmon, (D.I. 49 at 119) Anderson and Alred have competing interpretations of what occurred in this meeting. Anderson felt Alred did not participate and was disengaged in the meeting. (D.I. 54 Ex. 50 at 86–87) Alred, by contrast, felt she participated but that Anderson gave her no credit. (D.I. 49 Ex. 53 at 13)

Around the same time, Anderson says he was told by Alteri and Blackmon that two doctors with whom Alteri interacted were dissatisfied with Alred. (D.I. 54 Ex. 50 at 101–06) In Alred's view, Anderson was soliciting negative information about her from Alteri and Blackmon. (D.I. 54 at Ex. 4)

On February 13, 2006, Anderson and Alred met for another business meeting. (D.I. 49 at 69) Anderson asserts he attempted to address Alred's poor face-to-face execution and non-participation in the January meeting. (D.I. 54 Ex. 50 at 95) According to Alred, Anderson clearly explained that all sales representatives in the triad were responsible for the entire geographic territory; he made no exception for Alred, despite being under a doctor's order not to drive for longer than a one-hour period (limiting her ability to reach the entire territory). (D.I. 49 at 69–70) Alred testified that Anderson told her she would have to take a leave of absence or her performance would be ranked below standard. (D.I. 49 at 70) However, Anderson could not guarantee Alred would maintain her position if she took leave. (D.I. 49 at 70–71) Additionally, Alred claimed that Anderson asked whether she was too old to perform her job. (D.I. 49 at 70) She adds that Anderson asked other employees about Alred's age. (D.I. 56 at 4)

Alred spoke with Joyce Shaw and Bill Brown of Lilly's Human Resources department on February 14, 2006 and February 17, 2006, respectively. (D.I. 53 at 15) Alred then took Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave from February 24, 2006 until March 27, 2006. (D.I. 49 at 86)

Within a few days after her return from FMLA leave, Alred was scheduled to make calls in Salisbury, Maryland, approximately a two and one-half hour drive from Wilmington. (D.I. 49 at 85–86) On April 3, 2006, Anderson went on a ride-along with Alred, after which he gave her a report summarizing his observations, as well as objective sales data. (D.I. 53 Ex. 12) Anderson's subjective ratings of Alred's competency were very low. ( Id.)

Anderson again rode along with Alred on May 4–5, 2006. He concluded that Alred did not know how to effectively use the tools on her computer. (D.I. 53 at 10; D.I. 53 Ex. 4) As a result, Alred was assigned to work with a mentor. (D.I. 49 at 118) Alred testified in deposition that Anderson also began imposing burdensome requirements on her—specifically, that she call him every morning to detail her plans for the day, that she call him after each sales call, and that she prepare additional reports—that he did not require of other sales representatives. ( See D.I. 49 at 124–26, 130–37)

In June 2006, Anderson issued a verbal warning to Alred regarding her alleged lack of preparation, inability to complete tasks, and problems with teamwork. (D.I. 49 at 148) In particular, the warning cited an incident from December 2005 in which Alred and Alteri had disagreed regarding whether Alred must provide certain reports to Alteri—an incident about which Alred had ultimately complained to Human Resources. (D.I. 54 Ex. 50 at 213–14) In Alred's view, Anderson's boss, Steven Cohen (“Cohen”), lauded Anderson for issuing the warning to Alred, and pushed Anderson to continue building a team with young talent. (D.I. 54 at Ex. 18)

From June through August 2006, Anderson made note of Alred's alleged poor job performance. (D.I. 53 at Exs. 16–23) On August 5–6, 2006, Alred spoke with Bill Brown and Matt Morgan in Human Resources concerning what she perceived as Anderson's discriminatory actions. (D.I. 49 at 219–22) On August 23, 2006, Anderson submitted a draft written warning to Human Resources regarding Alred. (D.I. 54 at Ex. 18) On September 14, 2006, Anderson issued a written warning to Alred. (D.I. 53 Ex. 25) Around the same time, on September 15, 2006, Alred was informed by Human Resources that her complaint about Anderson's purportedly discriminatory actions had been dismissed. (D.I. 49 at 222 & P050) In late September 2006, Anderson entered into an operating agreement with Alred, Alteri, and Blackmon. (D.I. 49 at 231) Alred contends that under this agreement, more duties were assigned to her than to the others in the triad. (D.I. 54 at Ex. 32) Alred further contends that Anderson ignored Alred's attempts to prove that accusations made against her by a co-worker were false (D.I. 54 Ex. 75–76; D.I. 54 Ex. 50 at 106–08), and that Anderson scrutinized her expense reports and sampling practices more than those of her coworkers (D.I. 49 at 176–180; D.I. 54 Ex. 50 at 255–58).

On December 13, 2006, Alred was placed on a three-month probation. (D.I. 53 Ex. 32) Alred alleges that Cohen continued to approve and encourage Anderson to take action against Alred and hire younger sales representatives. ( See D.I. 54 at Exs. 37, 40) In her 2006 performance appraisal, Anderson rated Alred as “unsatisfactory” in five categories and “successful” in two categories. (D.I. 49 at 189–91)

Anderson went on ride-alongs with Alred in January and March 2007, and found on both occasions that her performance issues were unimproved. (D.I. 53 at Ex. 34, 36) Alred contends the sales calls were successful and that Anderson sent her a handwritten note to that effect on March 16, 2007. (D.I. 53 Ex. 37) In any event, on March 21, 2007, Lilly—on Anderson's recommendation—fired Alred. (D.I. 53 at 57)

II. Procedural Background

In response to her alleged mistreatment, Alred filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Delaware Department of Labor on April 24, 2007. (D.I. 26 at 7) She initiated the present action in federal court against Lilly and Anderson on February 12, 2008. (D.I. 1) Alred received a Right to Sue Notice from the Delaware Department of Labor on August 26, 2008, and a Notice of Right to Sue from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on October 21, 2008. (D.I. 26 at 7)

Alred filed her Second Amended Complaint on May 27, 2009. (D.I. 26) In it, Alred alleges that Defendants engaged in discriminatory and retaliatory conduct resulting in the termination of her employment, and that Defendants thereby violated her rights under the following statutes: (1) the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 (“ADEA”); (2) the Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act, 19 Del. C. § 710, et seq. (“DDEA”); and (3) the Family and Medical Leave...