Blackwell-Murray v. PNC Bank

963 F.Supp.2d 448

Christian BLACKWELL–MURRAY, Plaintiff,

v.PNC BANK, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 12–5319.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Aug. 8, 2013.

John Krawczyk, Koller Law PC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Deborah I. Ecker, Nicholas W. Schieffelin, Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP, Boston, MA, Maureen P. Fitzgerald, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, King of Prussia, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

BUCKWALTER, Senior District Judge.

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant PNC Bank's (“PNC”) Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, the Motion is granted in its entirety.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND¹A. Plaintiff's Employment with PNC

On April 30, 2008, Plaintiff, Christian Blackwell–Murray, an African American male, submitted an application (“Application”) for employment with Defendant PNC as a branch manager. (Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. A, Dep. of Christian Blackwell–Murray (“Blackwell–Murray Dep.”) 39:3–40:14, Apr. 4, 2013.) ² On July 18, 2008, PNC's Senior Vice President, Banking Sales Manager, Judy Bell, offered Plaintiff employment for the De Novo Branch Manager, Vice President position at PNC's branch in East Bradford. (Blackwell–Murray Dep. 48:22–49:9 & Ex. 2.) Plaintiff accepted the offer and began work for PNC on August 4, 2008. ( Id. at 49:7–9 & Ex. 2.)

The job description for Plaintiff's position was as follows:

Lead and direct all new branch sales and service activities and business development/community activities to achieve profit, deposit growth, sales revenue, unit production, market share and customer/employee satisfaction goals for the office. Responsible for opening and managing a new branch with no initial customer and deposit base. In the initial period, until significant customer/deposit base is acquired, the focus will be on new business development by generating sales through working the market and interacting with the local community. In addition, key accountabilities include continuous development of branch staff, marketing events in the community and the development and implementation of a sales strategy to drive branch performance. The De Novo Branch Manager continuously works to directly lead, coach and performance-manage the staff, as well as ensure the successful development and performance of all employees in the office in the areas of customer experience, service excellence, sales management, leadership and results.

( Id., Ex. 4.)

Plaintiff, however, testified that he was not fully responsible for his employees' performance in the branch. (Blackwell–Murray Dep. 155:4–7.) Rather, his only job was to check certain logbooks, which contain notations of what each employee did and when they did it, and to have morning huddles and scheduled operations meetings. ( Id. at 155:11–18, 156:19–159:3, 169:19–169:5.) When he saw their signatures in the logbooks next to the notations, he knew that his staff did what they were supposed to do. ( Id. at 155:14–118.) He commented that, if he had to go back and physically check everything, there would have been no point in having employees. ( Id. at 155:19–24, 157:15–21.)

On June 9, 2009, Plaintiff's supervisor, Judy Bell, issued Plaintiff a Corrective Action Form. (Blackwell–Murray Dep., Ex. 11.) The Form noted that a $48,000 wire was given to Plaintiff by his Assistant Manager and Plaintiff called it in without verifying it. ( Id.) While embezzlement was being investigated, several operational integrity/procedural violations were uncovered, including numerous teller violations in the teller envelopes, neglect of the audit binder for many months, numerous safe deposit violations, dual control keys in unsecured locations, and keys and combos in the vault being in complete disarray. ( Id.) The Form also remarked that, “[a]s the Branch Manager of the East Bradford Branch, Christian is responsible for the operational integrity of the branch including insuring that PNC policies and procedures are adhered to.” ( Id.) At the bottom, the Corrective Action Form stated, “These are very serious violations. Failure to resolve these issues or any additional violations will result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination.” ( Id.) Plaintiff discussed these violations with Ms. Bell and signed off on the form. ( Id.; Blackwell–Murray Dep. 147:11–154:24.) At his deposition, however, Plaintiff blamed these problems on at least four different employees. ( Id. at 147:11–154:24.) He explained that the employees had signed the log book indicating they had done certain tasks when, in actuality, they had not. ( Id.) Plaintiff then emphasized that he did not believe that the Corrective Action had anything to do with his improper oversight of the branch. ( Id. at 148:12–15.) According to Plaintiff, Ms. Bell allowed the insubordination of his employees to persist despite his complaints and despite Defendant's clear policy to “carry out supervisor's work directions” in Defendant's Employee Expectations Policy. (Pl.'s Resp. Statement Undisputed Facts ¶¶ 13–14.) ³B. Plaintiff's Violations of PNC Policies and Code of Business Ethics

1. PNC Policies at Issue

At some point during Plaintiff's employment, several of PNC's policies were implicated by Plaintiff's actions. First, PNC's Code of Business Conduct and Ethics provides, in pertinent part, “As a PNC employee, you are responsible for understanding and adhering to this Code. Always act in a professional, honest, and ethical manner when conducting your activities with and on behalf of PNC.” (Blackwell–Murray Dep., Ex. 7.) It goes on to state that:

Violating relevant laws, regulations, or this Code, or encouraging others to do so, exposes PNC to risk, including risk to its reputation, and therefore may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.

...

Business records should always be prepared honestly and accurately. We must never be dishonest or deceptive in creating or maintaining PNC records, or otherwise attempt to mislead PNC customers, management, auditors, or regulators.

( Id.) Plaintiff admits that he was trained on this Code and received an online copy of it. (Blackwell–Murray Dep. 126:12–129:20.)

PNC also maintains a Bonding Policy, which provides:

To be employed at PNC you must be covered under its fidelity bond at all times. If PNC has a reasonable belief that you have engaged in a dishonest act (whether or not it constitutes a crime), your coverage under the bond is suspended and you cannot continue working at PNC. You cannot return to work at PNC unless and until your bond coverage is reinstated.

...

Expectations and Responsibilities

You are expected to be truthful and honest at all times when working for and/or representing PNC.

...

If PNC believes you may have committed a dishonest act, you automatically are not bonded and you cannot remain at work. Depending on the circumstances, you employment may immediately be terminated.

...

Examples

Some examples of dishonest acts that may suspend bond coverage and/or result in termination of employment include, but are not limited to:

...

• notarizing a document when the person does not sign the document in front of you

(Blackwell–Murray Dep., Ex. 17.)

Finally, PNC's Notary Policy provides in pertinent part:

The law requires that when a notary attests to a signature, the person whose signature is being notarized must be present in front of the notary. This law protects not only the individual requesting the notarization, but also the notary and PNC. Violations of this law expose the notary and PNC to unnecessary risk.

It is also a violation of PNC's Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for any employee to ask a notary to attest to the signature of someone who is not present.

... Any employee who engages in any of the above misconduct may be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment.

...

What if documents require notarization and the branch employee notary is not available?

Every effort should be made to have a PNC notary present, especially for Home Equity Loan and Line of Credit closings. If a notary is unavailable, ask the customer to:

• Take the documents to another PNC location and have the documents notarized by that branch employee notary

• Take the documents to a notary outside of the bank.

In either case, the customer(s) must be in front of the notary when any document is notarized.

(Blackwell–Murray Dep., Ex. 12.) Plaintiff indicated that he was familiar with these policies and was trained to know that (1) customers had to be present when getting a loan document notarized and (2) if a notary was unavailable, the customer had to take the documents either to another PNC branch or to a third-party notary outside the bank. (Blackwell–Murray Dep. 173:14–24, 176:7–16, 180:17–181:13.) Plaintiff testified, however, that he was told by “everyone at PNC” that he simply had to get the loan notarized, whether or not the customer was actually present. ( Id. at 174:12–185:11.)

2. Plaintiff's Alleged Violations of Policies

In early June 2009, PNC terminated the employment of the only notary working at the East Bradford Branch, meaning that for the remainder of Plaintiff's employment, there was no notary onsite. ( Id. at 90:11–20, 183:15–185:11.) Plaintiff was concerned that if he had customers take the loan documents out of the building to get notarized and they did not bring them back within the time allotted, the loan would be null and void requiring it to be done all over again. ( Id. at 180:21–181:6.) He went on to explain that, “you will receive loan errors which will go against your—it went against your customer service score. It went against your bonus for the quarter for the year. It went against your branch manager CIQ score. It affected basically all of your metrics if you got loan errors.” ( Id. at 181:7–13, see also id. at 90:11–20.)

As such, between June 22, 2009 and September 5, 2009, Plaintiff, on at least five...