Horwath v. DHD Windows & Doors, LLC

DAVID HORWATH, Plaintiff, v. DHD WINDOWS AND DOORS, LLC D/B/A PELLA WINDOWS AND DOORS, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-1422 (CSH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JUNE 17, 2020

RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:

Plaintiff David Horwath originally instituted this lawsuit alleging employment discrimination against his former employer, DHD Windows and Doors, LLC ("DHD") in Connecticut state court.¹ See Doc. 1. DHD timely filed a notice of removal in this Court. See id. Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint in this Court, in which he alleges that DHD violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("ADA"), the Age Discrimination inEmployment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34 ("ADEA"), and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60(a) et seq. ("CFEPA"). See Doc. 12 ("Am. Compl.").

The Parties engaged in discovery, and DHD thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment. See Doc. 33; Doc. 33-1 ("Def.'s Mem."). Plaintiff opposes DHD's motion in all respects. See Doc. 37; Doc. 37-1 ("Pl.'s Opp."). This Ruling resolves DHD's motion.

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are derived from the Parties' submissions. See Doc. 34 ("Def.'s 56(a)"); Doc. 38 ("Pl.'s 56(a)"); Doc. 42 ("Def.'s 56(a) Resp."). Unless otherwise noted, the facts are undisputed or indisputable.

A. Plaintiff's Employment at DHD

In April 2016, DHD, a company which sells and installs windows and doors, hired Plaintiff as an Outside Retail Sales Representative. Def.'s 56(a), at 1 ¶ 1.² Plaintiff had at least two managers at DHD: Aiden Curtin ("Curtin") and Gary Minor ("Minor"). Id. at 2-3 ¶ 8; id. at 3 ¶ 10.

After Plaintiff was first hired by DHD and attended a company training, Minor approached Plaintiff because Minor had heard that Plaintiff had been making racially disparaging comments at the training. Minor informed Plaintiff that Plaintiff was overheard at the training making offensive jokes regarding Mexican individuals. Id. at 9 ¶ 44.

On December 6, 2016, Plaintiff executed an employment agreement with DHD in which he agreed to the terms of his employment. Id. at 1 ¶ 2; see also Doc. 34-1 ("Horwath Dep."), at 200-05.According to Plaintiff's agreement, Plaintiff was to be paid on a "commission only basis." Id. at 200. Pursuant to the agreement, further, Plaintiff received a bi-weekly payment, or draw, of $1,326.92, which represented commissions that DHD paid Plaintiff in advance. Def.'s 56(a), at 1 ¶ 3. At the end of each fiscal month, Plaintiff's draw was compared to the actual commissions that he earned on his window and door sales. Id. To the extent that the commissions that Plaintiff earned exceeded the draw that he received, DHD would pay Plaintiff the excess amount during the following month. Id. On the other hand, if Plaintiff's commissions fell below the draw, he would accumulate a "draw deficit." Id. at 2 ¶ 4. The maximum deficit under Plaintiff's employment agreement was $5,000. Id.

B. Plaintiff's Performance Issues and Performance Improvement Plan

At some point in late 2016 through January 2017, Plaintiff made a number of mistakes while carrying out his job. DHD characterizes these mistakes as "serious and repeated performance issues," including Plaintiff's "inability to obtain proper paperwork from customers, which resulted in his holding up the resolution of sales and his failure to close sales." Id. at 2 ¶ 5. Similarly, on another occasion in January 2017, Plaintiff mistakenly ordered for a client a bay window instead of a bow window. Pl.'s 56(a), at 3 ¶ 5.

Plaintiff admits that he made mistakes. Id. But, he disputes that these mistakes can be properly characterized as "serious and repeated." Id.³

In any event, as a result of Plaintiff's performance issues, on February 2, 2017, DHD issued Plaintiff a sixty-day Performance Improvement Plan ("PIP"). Def.'s 56(a), at 2 ¶ 6; see also Horwath Dep. at 207-08. The performance issues set forth in the PIP included the following: (1) "[p]roduct and knowledge development is not where DHD expected it as observed by your recent training session and customer issues; (2) [s]ales performance has dropped with regard to closing ratios; and (3) [i]nstall visits were not being done as discussed in previous review." Id. The PIP further stated that, "[s]hould your performance continue to decline or should you exhibit a lack of desire to improve your performance at any point during this PIP, we may elect to terminate your employment prior to the expiration of this PIP." Id.

The Parties have two principal factual disputes regarding the PIP. First, the Parties dispute whether all of the performance deficiencies outlined in the PIP accurately described Plaintiff's performance. Plaintiff could not recall, for example, if he had any customer issues or problems with product and knowledge development, as stated in the PIP. Id. at 2 ¶ 7. Plaintiff does not deny that as of February 2017, his sales performance had dropped with respect to closing ratios and that hisinstall visits were not being done. Id.⁴ But, the Parties dispute whether Plaintiff had been, at a minimum, hitting his monthly sales goals in 2017: Plaintiff claims that he was hitting his monthly sales goals from September 2016 through March 2017, averaging a thirty-eight percent close ratio with a thirty percent discount average. Pl.'s 56(a), at 20-21 ¶ 4. DHD contends, in contrast, that Plaintiff failed to hit his sales goals from January 2017 onward, and that he did not have a thirty percent discount average during his tenure at DHD. Def.'s 56(a) Resp. at 6 ¶ 4.

The second factual dispute regarding the PIP focuses on whether DHD supervisors met with Plaintiff to discuss his performance issues after the company issued the PIP. According to DHD, after the company issued the improvement plan, Minor met with Plaintiff on multiple occasions to discuss his performance and attempted to provide him with assistance. Def.'s 56(a), at 2-3 ¶ 8. Plaintiff claims, on the other hand, that nobody discussed his performance issues with him after DHD issued the PIP, Pl.'s 56(a), at 4 ¶ 8, though Plaintiff did state during his deposition that Curtin addressed Plaintiff's paperwork issues with him via email, Def.'s 56(a) Resp. at 1 ¶ 8. Additionally, the evidence that DHD has submitted in connection with the instant motion does confirm that Plaintiff's supervisors emailed Plaintiff on a number of occasions regarding his mistakes. See Horwath Dep. at 210-12 (exh. D); id. at 214 (exh. E); id. at 216 (exh. F).

Irrespective of the factual disputes surrounding the PIP, DHD asserts—and Plaintiff does not appear to dispute—that Plaintiff's performance failed to improve following the company's issuanceof the PIP. Def.'s 56(a) 2-3 ¶ 8.

C. Plaintiff's Hip Pain in January 2017

Meanwhile, sometime in January 2017, prior to DHD's decision to place Plaintiff on a PIP, Plaintiff began experiencing hip pain. Pl.'s 56(a), at 21 ¶ 6. According to Plaintiff's recollection, during the week of January 23, 2017, Plaintiff attended a sales meeting and was limping, which his supervisors noticed. Id. at 21 ¶ 7.⁵ After observing Plaintiff's difficulties, Curtin and Minor met with Plaintiff to discuss his hip pain. Id. at 21 ¶ 8. The conversation focused on whether Plaintiff's pain would affect Plaintiff's ability to attend, alongside other DHD employees, a trade convention in Miami which was scheduled to take place approximately two weeks later, from February 6-10, 2017. Id.

The Parties dispute the content of that conversation regarding Plaintiff's hip pain and his attendance at the upcoming conference. According to DHD, Minor and Curtin told Plaintiff that he did not have to attend the conference if he did not feel well and was unable to; and that the trip would involve a two or three-hour flight to Miami and a lot of sitting and walking. Def.'s 56(a), at 3 ¶ 10-11. According to DHD, Minor and Curtin also stated that Plaintiff should not feel any pressure or obligation to attend the conference; that skipping it would not harm Plaintiff's standing at DHD; and that there would not be any penalty if he skipped it. Id. Lastly, according to DHD,Minor and Curtin informed Plaintiff that the decision to attend the conference was ultimately Plaintiff's; but, if he chose to attend, they expected him to be an active participant. Id.

Plaintiff has a different recollection of the conversation regarding the Miami conference. According to Plaintiff, contrary to DHD's portrayal of the discussion, Minor and Curtin were not actually concerned with Plaintiff's well-being. Pl.'s 56(a), at 5 ¶ 10.⁶ According to Plaintiff, moreover, when Minor and Curtin learned of Plaintiff's injury prior to the conference, they said that, "everybody is furious at you" and that, "if your hip is bothering you, don't go." Id. at 21 ¶ 8. Minor and Curtin also stated, according to Plaintiff, that they would be "very upset" with Plaintiff if he attended the conference with a limp and that "you better not go on this trip if you're going to be a problem." Id. Similarly, Plaintiff claims that Minor and Curtin said that they would be "furious" if he was limping because it would make the company look bad; and that he would not look presentable to customers. Id. at 21-22 ¶ 9. Lastly, according to Plaintiff, they said, "if your hip is bothering you, don't go, you are going to make a fool of us." Id.⁷

Notwithstanding the Parties' disagreements regarding the contents of this conversation, the Parties do agree that at no point during the conversation did Plaintiff request any type of accommodation in connection with his attendance at the conference. Def.'s 56(a), at 3 ¶ 12.

D. Plaintiff's Attendance at the Miami Trade Conference in Early February 2017

Plaintiff ultimately decided to attend the conference in Florida, which began on Monday, February 6, 2017. Id. at 3 ¶ 13. By the second day of the conference, however,...