Brenner v. The Harleysville Insurance Cos., CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-08 (E.D. Pa. 9/30/2002)

Page 1

JANET B. BRENNER and VIRGINIA A. BROADBELT v. THE HARLEYSVILLE INSURANCE. COS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-08.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

September 30, 2002.

MEMORANDUM

JAY C. WALDMAN, District Judge.

I. Introduction

Plaintiffs have asserted claims for age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA") 43 Pa. C.S.A. § 951 et seq. against their former employer. They have also asserted claims of retaliation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.¹

Presently before the court is the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

II. Legal Standard

In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must determine whether "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986); Arnold Pontiac-GMC, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 786 F.2d 564, 568 (3d Cir. 1986). Only facts that may affect the outcome of a case are "material." Anderson, 477 U.S. 248. All reasonable inferences from the record are drawn in favor of the non-movant. See id. at 256.

Although the movant has the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact, the non-movant must then establish the existence of each element on which it bears the burden of proof. See J.F. Feeser, Inc. v. Serv-A-Portion, Inc., 909 F.2d 1524, 1531 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 921 (1991). A plaintiff cannot avert summary judgment with speculation or by resting on the allegations in his pleadings, but rather must present competent evidence from which a jury could reasonably find in his favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E. for M.E., 172 F.3d 238, 252 (3d Cir. 1999); Williams v. Borough of West Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 460 (3d Cir. 1989); Woods v. Bentsen, 889 F. Supp. 179, 184 (E.D.Pa. 1995).

III. Facts

From the competent evidence of record, as uncontroverted or otherwise viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the pertinent facts are as follow.

Defendant Harleysville is a Pennsylvania insurance corporation with thirty-two field offices throughout the United States and headquarters in Harleysville, Pennsylvania. Janet Brenner was born on June 8, 1942 and hired by Harleysville on September 10, 1979 as a coding clerk. Virginia Broadbelt was born on October 21, 1941 and hired by Harleysville on October 21, 1980 as a sorter. In 1981, she was transferred to the Coding Unit. Both plaintiffs were given the title of senior data coding clerk in 1997. The Policy Control Unit ("Data Entry"), the Technical Support Unit ("Technical Support") and the Coding Unit comprised the Policy Processing Department.

There were three positions in the Coding Unit with the same job description and basic duties but representing different levels of responsibility. Senior coding clerks had more responsibility than coding clerks and coding specialists had more responsibility than senior coding clerks. Specialists did not have supervisory authority but acted as trouble-shooters in their areas of expertise.

As coders, plaintiffs were responsible for handwriting policy information received from field offices onto paper forms that contained blocks for insurance codes. The forms were then given to data entry clerks who keypunched the information into Harleysville's computer system. Each coder's error percentages and lines of code completed each day were recorded and analyzed on a quarterly basis as part of the coder's performance review.

Catherine Murphy was supervisor of the Coding Unit for many years until her retirement in 1995. From October 30, 1995 through May 1997, plaintiffs worked under Debra Niess who supervised both the Coding and Technical Support Units. She had prior supervisory experience within Harleysville but had little coding experience and often asked coders to assist her in handling coding problems. One person Ms. Niess relied upon was Barbara Freeze to whom she directed employees for answers to their questions.

Working relations between plaintiffs and Ms. Freeze were strained. Ms. Freeze sometimes shouted at plaintiffs. Although plaintiffs rarely had questions, Ms. Freeze had provided wrong information to them when they did and plaintiffs proceeded to code on the basis of incorrect information. The errors were later discovered during the course of an audit and plaintiffs were required to redo some coding work.

In March 1997, Ms. Niess promoted Ms. Freeze to the position of coding specialist. Unlike prior promotions, the position had not been opened to other applicants. Plaintiffs believed that another coder, Diane Kreisher, was better qualified for the specialist position and should have been given the opportunity to be promoted.

Ms. Brenner met with Ms. Niess to discuss her concerns about the procedure by which Ms. Freeze was promoted and to complain about Ms. Freeze shouting at her and providing coders with incorrect information. Plaintiffs, along with Ms. Kreisher and Connie Bauer, another coder, met with Joan McAleer, the head of the Policy Processing Department, on March 23, 1997 to express the same concerns.

In April 1997, having received no response from Ms. McAleer, plaintiffs and Ms. Bauer presented their complaints to Elanor O'Brien, a human resources consultant.² During the meeting with Ms. O'Brien, plaintiffs complained about Ms. Freeze and criticisms in the April 1997 employee reviews they had received from Ms. Niess. Ms. O'Brien said that she would look into plaintiffs' concerns. When plaintiffs did not receive any response, they arranged a second meeting with Ms. O'Brien. Ms. O'Brien informed plaintiffs that Ms. Freeze would not be demoted, that their reviews would not be altered and that if they wanted to continue to pursue their complaints, they should meet with Catherine Strauss, the Vice President of Human Resources.

On November 6, 1997, plaintiffs, along with Ms. Bauer and Ms. O'Brien, met with Ms. Strauss. Plaintiffs complained about Ms. Freeze's promotion and the April 1997 reviews.³ The following morning, Ms. Strauss met with Ms. O'Brien, Ms. Niess, Ms. McAleer and her supervisor, Mildred Alderfer. Shortly thereafter, Ms. O'Brien and Ms. Strauss met with plaintiffs and Ms. Bauer. Ms. Strauss advised that the April 1997 performance evaluation covered a period of three months and could improve prior to the January 1998 annual evaluation, three quarters of which would reflect a period of time under a new supervisor.⁴ When the meeting reached an impasse, in a raised voice Ms. Strauss told plaintiffs that she would address their concerns if they put them in writing with specific examples which could be addressed. Ms. Strauss advised plaintiffs to "let it go" or "it would take care of it itself." Plaintiffs interpreted this as a veiled threat that they would be terminated if they continued to complain.⁵

On November 19, 1997, Ms. Strauss sent an email to plaintiffs asking whether they intended to put their stated concerns in writing. In response, plaintiffs requested a meeting at which they informed Ms. Strauss that they felt she was unresponsive to their grievances and had decided to pursue other avenues.⁶

Plaintiffs and other coders were transferred in April 1997 into a section of the Coding Unit supervised by Joan Miller until her retirement in March 1999. Ms. Miller observed that plaintiffs constantly complained about their coworkers, the work they were given and her supervision of them. It was more difficult and time consuming to supervise plaintiffs than any other staff.⁷

During this period, the tensions persisted. In a response to criticisms in a subsequent review, Ms. Broadbelt stated that "neither supervisor [Miller] or manager [McAleer] has a clue and no reason to give me PRL [proficient performer — low] other than slandering and harassing me because of BWF [Barbara Freeze] incident."⁸

In the fall of 1998, Harleysville began to develop a plan to streamline the coding operations by investing in an on-line system. Jessie Nelson, a project manager, was given responsibility for implementation of the new system. A major purpose of converting to the new system was to eliminate a backlog that had developed and resulted in mandatory overtime work for the coders. The new system combined the two-step process of coding and data entry into a single process. A new Policy Coding Unit was created to reflect this condensation of operations.

Mr. Nelson, Ms. McAleer and her supervisor, Mildred Alderfer, met in the fall of 1998 to discuss the qualifications necessary for coders in the new unit. Mr. Nelson recognized that there would be a greater need for cross-training and teamwork in the new unit. The group determined which skills would be needed in the new position and then met with Ms. O'Brien who decided that a new job description should be prepared. Mary Buhring in the Human Resources Department developed the new job description in consultation with Mr. Nelson, Ms. McAleer and Ms. O'Brien. A job description reflecting the essential duties common to all coders, the job knowledge required for all coders and the additional duties of a senior coding clerk and specialist was drafted.

By late January 1999, Mr. Nelson had decided that Ms. Niess was the most qualified person to supervise the new unit. Because there were more employees in the Policy Processing Department than available positions in the new Policy Coding Unit, Mr. Nelson, Ms. O'Brien and Ms. McAleer decided to post the new positions and allow qualified employees in the Coding, Data Entry and Technical Services Units to apply for...