Brown v. Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc.

KENNETH BROWN

v.SIEMENS HEALTHCARE DIAGNOSTICS, INC.

Civil Action No. DKC 11-0769

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Dated: July 31, 2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Presently pending and ready for resolution in this employment discrimination action are the motions for summary judgment and to seal filed by Defendant Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc. ("Siemens" or "the company") (ECF No. 16, 18, 37), and a motion to seal filed by Plaintiff Kenneth Brown (ECF No. 34). The relevant issues have been briefed, and the court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary. For the reasons that follow, the company's motion for summary judgment will be granted, and the parties' motions to seal will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The following facts are either uncontroverted or taken in the light most favorable to Mr. Brown unless otherwise indicated. Mr. Brown is an African-American male who is fifty-nine years old. He began working as a field service engineer("FSE") at Siemens in 1997.¹ His duties included initial installation of diagnostic instruments as well as troubleshooting and technical support after completion of the instrument installation process. From 1997 through 2004, Ronald Overcash, a Caucasian male, served as the customer care manager ("CCM") for Mr. Brown's region. During this time period, Mr. Brown received yearly raises as well as a rating of either "Exceeds Requirements" or "Meets Expectations" on all of his annual performance evaluations. (ECF No. 31, Corrected Brown Decl., at 3 ¶ 8).² These ratings encompassed the results that Mr. Brown had received on customer satisfaction surveys throughout the year.

In September 2004, Kristin DiNofrio, a Caucasian female, became CCM for Mr. Brown's region. The following year, she received three customer complaints regarding his "attitude andprofessionalism," which caused Mr. Brown to rank second to last in his region for customer satisfaction in 2005. (ECF No. 16-5, DiNofrio First Decl., at 2 ¶ 5). Indeed, his customer satisfaction rate for the year was 93.9%, below the target of 95% set forth in the company's annual evaluation form. (ECF No. 31, Ex. F, at 60). Despite these complaints and his comparatively low customer satisfaction rate, Mr. Brown received a rating of "fully meets" with regard to the customer satisfaction indicator on his 2005 annual evaluation. (Id.).³ He also received an annual raise.

Early in 2006, Ms. DiNofrio received a complaint from the laboratory manager at Kaiser, a client in Falls Church, Virginia. "The manager told [Ms. DiNofrio] that Kaiser . . . no longer wanted [Mr. Brown] to be the assigned FSE because of dissatisfaction with his communication regarding scheduling, problem resolution, and service reports." (ECF No. 16-5, at 2 ¶ 6). Because the FSE in line to take over the account lived in Richmond, Virginia, a distance deemed too far away to permit a proper response time if problems arose, Ms. DiNofrio and the laboratory manager "agreed that [Mr. Brown] would continue to be the FSE assigned to the account" and that they would "monitorthe situation." (Id.). Ms. DiNofrio did not receive any additional customer complaints about Mr. Brown during 2006,⁴ and his annual evaluation stated that his "customer satisfaction survey results . . . were 97.1%," above the company's 95% target, and that he had "fully" met the company's expectations for 2006. (ECF No. 31, Ex. H, at 81).⁵

In March 2007, approximately one month after receiving his 2006 performance evaluation, Mr. Brown received a "verbal warning" from Ms. DiNofrio and was placed on a work improvement plan. (ECF No. 16-5, at 2-3 ¶ 7). The verbal warning explained that three customers had recently contacted Siemens to express dissatisfaction with the service Mr. Brown provided. First, a customer representative at LabCorp requested a follow-up visit after he failed to leave a machine in operational order after performing scheduled maintenance. Second, a manager at Shady Grove Adventist Hospital informed Ms. DiNofrio that Mr. Brown "dug his heels in and refused to work on [an] issue" on site when she asked for his help. (Id. , Ex. 7, at 7). Third, the customer representative at Southern Maryland Hospital complainedafter Mr. Brown initially agreed to take on its overtime work, but subsequently refused to return to its site to complete that work. Mr. Brown met with Ms. DiNofrio and her director, Janet Kubik, to discuss these complaints. At the end of the meeting, Ms. DiNofrio informed him that he was "a good worker" and asked that he "try to avoid this [situation] in the future." (ECF No. 16-4, Brown Dep., at 17).

On July 9, 2007, Ms. DiNofrio issued Mr. Brown a "first written warning" after receiving two complaints from Washington Adventist Hospital in Takoma Park, Maryland. (ECF No. 16-5, at 3-4 ¶ 8).⁶ In the first complaint, a customer representative informed Ms. DiNofrio that Mr. Brown's failure to resolve an "ongoing" instrument problem "was unacceptable." (Id. , Ex. G, at 10). Ms. DiNofrio admonished him for failing to abide by the company's policy that required FSEs to report recurring problems "to a higher level of support." (Id. at 3 ¶ 8).⁷ In the secondcomplaint, received approximately one week after the first complaint, multiple managers at the hospital "indicated they no longer want[ed Mr. Brown] to be responsible for their service due to his] failure to meet commitments, as well as [his] attitude and professionalism." (Id. , Ex. G, at 11).⁸ Indeed, one manager even stated that Mr. Brown "was one key contributing reason why the laboratory discontinued use of [a Siemens machine] and decided upon another vendor." (Id. at 12). Mr.Brown, who was carrying a workload significantly in excess of his colleagues at this time, was "happy" to be relieved of the responsibility of this customer account. (ECF No. 16-4, at 44).

In September 2007, Siemens sent Mr. Brown to attend a communications workshop entitled "Enhancing Your Interpersonal Style." (Id. ). The results were short-lived. On October 24, 2007, following receipt of complaints from St. Mary's Hospital in Leonardtown, Maryland, and Kaiser, Ms. DiNofrio issued Mr. Brown a "final written warning." (ECF No. 16-5, at 5-6 ¶ 11).⁹ The complaint from St. Mary's Hospital expressed dissatisfaction with Mr. Brown's response time, "troubleshooting assistance, and . . . attitude." (ECF No. 16-5, Ex. K, at 13). The final warning discussed two complaints from Kaiser. Kaiser initially contacted Ms. DiNofrio about inaccurate documentation that Mr. Brown had prepared after performing unscheduled maintenance on one of its machines. Subsequently, Kaiser submitted a second complaint requesting his removal from its account, stating that his "attitude and professionalism [were] unchanged despite . . . efforts to bring this to [Mr. Brown] and [Ms. DiNofrio]'sattention." (Id. at 14). When Ms. DiNofrio followed up with two Kaiser representatives about these issues, one representative informed her that Mr. Brown had approached the other "in [such] a hostile, aggressive manner" while on site that she feared a physical confrontation would result. (Id. ). She also indicated that the customer had "lobbied hard" to avoid purchasing another machine from Siemens "because of" Mr. Brown. (Id. ). After informing Mr. Brown about these complaints, Ms. DiNofrio advised him that "[a]ny further customer complaints [would] result in [his] immediate termination." (Id. at 15).

The 2007 complaints - several of which addressed his "attitude and professionalism" with clients - caused Mr. Brown's annual customer satisfaction rate to decline from the prior year, falling from 97.1% in 2006 to 95.82% in 2007. This decline also led his ranking among regional peers to drop off significantly: Although Mr. Brown had ranked in the upper half of regional FSEs for customer satisfaction during 2006, he ranked second to last in the region in this category during 2007 - just as he had in 2005. Despite these results, Siemens still provided Mr. Brown with a raise for the year.¹⁰

On January 22, 2008, the company received a complaint from Calvert Memorial Hospital, another customer account that Mr. Brown had been assigned to service. The complaint indicated that Mr. Brown had "basically called [the customer representative] a liar" when the representative attempted to explain the issue that had arisen with one of the hospital's machines. (ECF No. 16-5, Ex. L, at 18). The representative also stated that Mr. Brown was unable to fix the problem and that she had to call another FSE to the site two days later to resolve it. When Ms. DiNofrio received the complaint, she contacted Ms. Kubik and Mr. Overcash, who had since become a manager, to request their advice. She noted that Mr. Brown disputed some of the feedback that the customer representative had provided in the complaint, explaining that the case presented a "'he said' . . . 'she said'" dilemma, "though [in her opinion] given [Mr. Brown]'s history . . . most likely the 'she said' [was] more accurate." (ECF No. 31, Ex. N., at 96).¹¹ Ms. DiNofrio, Ms. Kubik, and Mr. Overcash subsequently agreed that his employment should be terminated, and, on February 29,2008, they met with Mr. Brown to inform him of their decision. The company subsequently hired two younger, Caucasian employees to replace Mr. Brown.

B. Procedural Background

Mr. Brown filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on July 17, 2008. In the charge, he alleged discrimination on the basis of age and race. The EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of Rights on December 22, 2010. The form stated that, "[b]ased upon [the] investigation, the EEOC [was] unable to conclude that the information obtained establish[ed] violations of the statutes." (ECF No. 1-1).

On March 23, 2011, Mr. Brown commenced this action by filing a complaint against Siemens, asserting race...