Dhingra v. SAP Am. ,Inc.

1

DHINGRA, Plaintiff, v. SAP AMERICA, INC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 22-0765

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

February 27, 2023

MEMORANDUM

CHAD F. KENNEY, JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiff Anuradha Dhingra (“Plaintiff”) brings five claims against Defendant SAP America, Inc. (“Defendant”) asserting: (i) a violation of the Fifth Amendment; (ii) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (iii) invasion of privacy; (iv) a violation of the Alien Tort Statute; and (v) that temporary and permanent injunctive relief is warranted. ECF No. 1 at 6-13. Before the Court is Defendant's fully briefed Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 35, 41, 43, 44. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendant's Motion and dismiss this case. An appropriate order will follow.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a management and technology consultant who previously used Defendant's services to obtain professional certifications through the SAP Certification Hub (“Certification Hub”). ECF No. 1 at 2. Specifically, in 2015 and 2016, following the completion of SAP Training Academies, Plaintiff sat for online proctored examinations^[1] and received two certifications in distinct, but unspecified, software technologies. ECF No. 9 at 2; ECF 20 at 3:9-11. Once certified, Plaintiff received an SAP Certification and Certification Id. ECF No. 1 at 4. She was also granted access to SAP's Certification Hub which keeps a record of certifications and alerts users of expired certifications or requirements for maintaining a current certification. ECF 9 at 1-2. Importantly, the SAP certifications allowed Plaintiff to represent to employers that she was certified to operate certain software. ECF 20 at 2:14-20. SAP also maintains a Learning Hub which helps users build and maintain SAP software skills and provides them with the training required to obtain and maintain SAP certifications. ECF No. 9 at 2. Relatedly, SAP requires that those with certifications complete regular assessments in order to maintain current certifications. Id. at 1. Plaintiff's subscriptions to the Certification Hub and Learning Hub lapsed in 2016 and, accordingly, her certifications expired in 2016. Id. Though her previous certifications expired, Plaintiff was not immediately foreclosed from subscribing and accessing either Hub to become re-certified. Id.

In November 2021, Plaintiff received an email from Defendant informing Plaintiff that her Certification ID, which allowed her to access certifications and trainings, would expire within 30 days. ECF No. 1 at 5. In December 2021, Plaintiff paid for a Certification Hub subscription and intended to renew her certifications but ultimately did not do so within the 30-day deadline because of financial hardship. ECF No. 1 at 5; ECF 20 ¶¶ 5:10-17. Instead, from November 2021 to December 15, 2021, Plaintiff made repeated requests via phone, email, and Defendant's online dialogue box to extend her Certification Id. ECF No. 1 at 5. Nevertheless, around December 15, 2021, SAP changed Plaintiff's Certification ID to “expired,” and Plaintiff was no longer able to access her Certification Hub subscription. Id. at 5-6. Without such access, Plaintiff is unable to obtain official records of her 2015 and 2016 certifications.^[2] Id. Additionally, Plaintiff is unable to access a prior “On-Premise technology” SAP certification^[3] (“Older Certification”) that she attained at some time “many years ago.”^[4] ECF 20 at 3:11-16. While Plaintiff has documentation of her certifications, she has been unable to access the official certification documents ever since her Hub access was withdrawn.^[5] Id. at 4:6-12.

The lapsed certifications, and records thereof, are important to Plaintiff because she would like to list them on her resume to establish competency and seniority in her field. ECF 20 at 3:1820; 5:18-22. Plaintiff does not dispute that, at present, her 2015 and 2016 certifications are “obsolete” or “old.” Id. at 7:20-21. However, Plaintiff maintains that she needs the official certifications to prove that she was certified at some point. Id. at 7:20-24. According to Plaintiff, prospective employers frequently request verification of certifications vis-a-vis the official certificates, which she does not have in her possession.^[6] Id. at 4:1-5. Because Plaintiff is unemployed, and has struggled to find employment in her field, she avers that the absence of the certifications has detrimentally impacted her career. Id.

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and request for injunctive relief against SAP alleging that Defendants: violated her Fifth Amendment rights by denying Plaintiff access to the Certification Hub (Count I), breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count II), executed an invasion of privacy because of their online certification's proctoring process (Count III), violated the Alien Tort Statute because SAP may delete Plaintiff's certification records (Count IV), and owe Plaintiff injunctive relief in abstaining from deleting her SAP certification records lest she suffer irreparable harm (Count V). ECF Nos. 1, 2.

Following proper service of Defendants, and in the absence of a timely response to Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court ordered Defendant to file a responsive pleading on or before April 29, 2022. ECF No. 8. Defendant filed an Answer on April 28, 2022 in which Defendant provided that Plaintiff failed to complete any regular assessments to keep her certifications current, failed to maintain subscriptions to the Hubs, and that Defendant would make a customer service representative available to Plaintiff if she would like to enroll in up-to-date certification programs. ECF No. 9.

The Court held a pretrial conference on June 21, 2022. ECF No. 20. At the hearing, Defendant offered to provide Plaintiff with an affidavit attesting that she was previously certified after Plaintiff provided Defendant with records related to her certifications. Id. at 7:1-12. Plaintiff approved of this arrangement by stating, “that would be good” and confirming that “the fact that I did certify is what I'm trying to achieve here.” Id. at 7:11-24. The Court reiterated that this arrangement would achieve the Plaintiff's goal, to which Plaintiff agreed. Id. at 8:1-2. The parties agreed to a timeline for providing the necessary information, and the Court ordered Defendant to notify the Court within two weeks of providing the affidavit to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant agreed. Id. at 8:6-13. The Court asked whether Plaintiff sought any further relief to which she replied, “that's all I need.” Id. at 9:1-4. Importantly, Plaintiff confirmed that the agreed upon arrangement would resolve the case. Id. at 9:5-10.

That same day, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide documentation of the certifications and Defendant to produce an affidavit attesting to the existence of prior certifications as documented by Plaintiff. ECF No. 16. The Court's Order further contemplated that Defendant's affidavit would resolve all issues in this case and that the parties would file a joint stipulation of dismissal by July 12, 2022. Id. Plaintiff timely provided Defendant with the records required to verify her certification. ECF No. 19. Specifically, Plaintiff provided Defendant records of her 2015 and 2016 SuccessFactors certifications and an Application Consultant certification from October, which seems to be the alluded Older Certification.^[7] ECF No. 24 at 4-5. However, as to the October Certification, Plaintiff redacted the year of certification from the documents provided to Defendant. Id. at 5. Defendants requested an unopposed extension of time to submit the affidavit, which the Court granted. ECF Nos. 19, 22.

On July 12, 2022, SAP provided Plaintiff with the affidavit in compliance with the Court's Orders.^[8] ECF No. 24 at 4. Defendant did not include the Older Certification because the certification year was redacted by Plaintiff and because the certification was older than 10 years.^[9]Id. at 5. With the affidavit, Defendant provided Plaintiff with a joint stipulation of dismissal, but Plaintiff refused, the next day, to sign the stipulation because Defendant did not verify, through the affidavit, that Plaintiff had obtained the October Certification and the fact Plaintiff had attended SAP Academy. Id. at 5-6.

On July 15, 2022, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court seeking reconsideration of the prior orders directing the parties to submit a stipulation of dismissal after Defendant's affidavit was filed. ECF No. 22. The Court denied Plaintiff's request and, because Plaintiff no longer agreed to dismissal, issued a standard scheduling order and referred the case to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Sitarski for a settlement conference. ECF Nos. 22, 23.

Defendant filed a Motion to Enforce Resolution of the Court's Order on July 25, 2022. ECF No. 24. Defendant stated that they fully complied with the Court's Order and that Plaintiff was seeking to reverse course to “extract more time and resources from SAP.” Id. at 8. Defendant requested the Court enter an order either (i) requiring Plaintiff, within five business days of a Court's order, to execute the joint stipulation to dismiss and return the executed copy to Defendant; or (ii) dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendant with prejudice. Id. Plaintiff requested an extension of time to respond, which the Court denied, and Defendants filed a supplemental brief. ECF Nos. 27-29. The Court denied Defendant's Motion to Enforce Resolution on August 25, 2022. ECF No. 33.

On October 24, 2022, Judge Sitarski scheduled a settlement conference for November 29, 2022. ECF No. 34. In the interim Defendant filed the instant Motion for...