Hui Xu v. LightSmyth Techs.

1

HUI XU, an individual, Plaintiff, v. LIGHTSMYTH TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and FINISAR, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants.

No. 6:20-cv-01201-MC

United States District Court, D. Oregon

May 25, 2023

OPINION AND ORDER

Michael McShane, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Hui Xu brings this employment action against Defendants Lightsmyth Technologies, Inc., and Finisar Corporation asserting claims of discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, wrongful discharge, and failure to provide reasonable accommodation. Pl.'s Compl. ¶¶ 44-62, ECF No. 1. On December 27, 2022, Defendants moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 62. For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

LightSmyth is a Eugene, Oregon based manufacturing company and subsidiary of Finisar Corporation. Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 2. In January of 2012, Plaintiff began working for LightSmyth as a Manufacturing Technician, and was later promoted to Supply Chain Manager. Pl.'s Compl. ¶¶ 10-11. While at Lightsmyth, Plaintiff earned a reputation for being a difficult coworker and employee; her former colleagues describe her as confrontational, defensive, insulting, and incapable of accepting criticism. Berg Decl. Ex. 2, at 8, ECF No. 63; Berg Decl. Ex. 5, at 4 (“[S]he was confrontational. She liked to yell and scream repeatedly.”); Berg Decl. Ex 24, at 2 (If it's a job that she doesn't like she started getting very argumentative and she would insult people.”). Despite her own problematic behavior, Plaintiff frequently reported trivial personal disagreements with her coworkers to Human Resources, often characterizing her work environment as hostile, toxic, and discriminatory, based on her protected status as a 65-year-old Asian woman. See e.g., Berg. Decl. Ex. 18, at 1, 11; Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 7. Plaintiff estimates that she made about 80-100 reports to HR during her employment. Berg Decl. Ex. 1, at 62.

The complaints escalated in June of 2016, when Defendants assigned Catherine Brown as Plaintiff's new supervisor. Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 17. This relationship was strained from the beginning; Plaintiff repeatedly voiced her opinion that Ms. Brown was unqualified to supervise Plaintiff and her peers. See Berg Decl. Ex. 1, at 40; Ex. 29, at 1 (Plaintiff stating in a letter to CEO Chuck Mattera that Defendants “assigned an obviously unqualified, poorly educated Caucasian woman to supervise the new person”). Plaintiff also had a tense relationship with her “Clean Room Lead,” Liza Dayton, who Plaintiff describes as “rude and disrespectful toward Plaintiff but not to [her] male colleagues.” Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 21. Lead Dayton avers that Plaintiff often became “very argumentative” and would insult Dayton when Plaintiff was assigned to a disfavored task.^[1] Berg Decl. Ex. 24, at 2-3 (“Every time there's a job that she doesn't like, she will start saying that she's being harassed and she's being attacked.”).

In November of 2016, Defendants formally disciplined Plaintiff for slapping Lead Dayton in the buttocks several times in front of their coworkers. Berg Decl. Ex. 1, at 78. Rather than terminating Plaintiff for sexual harassment, Defendants reviewed the company code of conduct with Plaintiff, issued a “Performance Assessment & Improvement Plan,” and warned Plaintiff that any further misconduct would result in “further disciplinary action, up to and including termination.” Id. Plaintiff contends that the company “knew or should have known that Plaintiff and others engaged in horseplay in the workplace,” that her supervisors unfairly targeted Plaintiff,^[2] and that “Defendants' disciplinary action chilled Plaintiff's complaints for a couple months.” Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 21.

Around this same time, Plaintiff reported that she was having difficulty with her eyes and requested a magnifying glass to help her label products. Berg Decl. Ex. 1, at 68. Defendants provided this accommodation immediately. Id. (“They gave you a magnifying glass when you requested one without delay, correct? A. Correct.”). Then in April of 2017, Plaintiff submitted a doctor's note stating that Plaintiff suffers from “cataract and dry eye” and that she would need “frequent breaks from looking through the microscope and should be excused from looking through the scope for continuous periods greater than 30 minutes.” Lafky Decl. Ex. 5, at 1, ECF No. 80. Defendants accommodated this request and adjusted Plaintiff's break schedule accordingly.^[3] Berg Decl. Ex. 1, at 69.

Over the next year, tensions further escalated between Plaintiff, Supervisor Brown, and Lead Dayton. On February 25, 2018, Plaintiff made a formal complaint to General Manager Gil Cohen, detailing what she perceived as “prima facie examples of abuse of power, retaliation, and discrimination.” Lafky Decl. Ex. 20, at 2. The essence of Plaintiff's grievance involved her disagreements with Lead Dayton about her product packaging duties. Id. Plaintiff also alleged that Brown and Dayton conspired to “make her life as difficult as possible at Lightsmyth.” Id. In this letter, Plaintiff requested a new supervisor “who is reasonable, and appreciates my contributions.” Id. In response to Plaintiff's complaint, Neel Dhar, Finisar's Sr. HR Manager, flew up to Eugene from San Jose, California to interview Plaintiff, Dayton, Brown, and several other employees. Defs.' Mot. 12; Berg Decl. Ex. 37, at 1. On March 27, 2023, Ms. Dhar notified Plaintiff that based on the inconsistencies in Plaintiff's interview, Ms. Dhar was “unable to substantiate” Plaintiff's claims. Id.; Berg Decl. Ex. 27, at 6.

March-April 2018 Restructuring of Plaintiff's Job Duties

On March 15, 2018, Plaintiff requested further accommodation for her vision, and submitted a doctor's note indicating that she was “not able to perform visual inspection of subtle surface defects.” Lafky Decl. Ex. 5, at 2. Since, according to Defendants, visual inspection was an essential function of Plaintiff duties, Defendants decided to restructure her role. Berg Decl. Ex. 39, at 1. On March 26, 2018, Plaintiff's official title changed from “Supply Chain Manager” to “Manufacturing Technician,” which also changed her status from an overtime-exempt, salaried employee to a non-exempt, hourly employee. Id. Plaintiff's primary duties included “packaging all out going shipments,” “optical efficiency of standard material supply and customer gratings,” and “loading and unloading the parts washer.” Id. Supervisor Brown advised Plaintiff,

We will restructure your role as described above as an accommodation to you, and will “try out” the restructured position for a period of one month. After that time, Neel [Dhar] and I will meet with you again to discuss how this accommodation is working, whether Finisar can continue to offer you this accommodation, and whether there may be some other available accommodation that Finisar can offer to you.

Id. Defendants also promised to work with IT to adjust the font size of the OE station monitor and to provide Plaintiff with special safety glasses equipped with magnifying lenses. Id. at 2. After 30 days, the accommodation seemed to be working, and Plaintiff's new role was made permanent on April 26, 2018. Pl.'s Resp. 8, ECF No. 79.

May 2018 Annual Performance Review

On May 8, 2018, Plaintiff received her annual performance evaluation from Supervisor Brown. Berg Decl. Ex. 40, at 1-3. The report indicated that Plaintiff “met expectations” in every category and “exceeded expectations” in the “commitment to quality” category. Id. at 1-2. In the “goals and objectives” section, Supervisor Brown opined that Plaintiff could work on “packaging single pieces in 5 minutes or less[,]” and should “[c]ontinue to work on clear communication with lead and manager.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff avers that the suggestion to increase her productivity was “one of the most offensive and hostile occurrences that happened” during her employment. Berg Decl. Ex. 1, at 98; Defs.' Mot. 14.

October 2018 Admonition About Respecting Coworkers

On October 2, 2018, after another employee notified management that several “Accelink wafers” showed signs of dripping and “significant walk off,” Lead Dayton suggested in an email that Plaintiff might be responsible for the wafer walk off. Berg. Decl. Ex. 17, at 3-4. (Dayton stating, “I didn't change the set up that Hui's been working this morning I wonder if this is the problem that she is having of significant walk off.”). Plaintiff was deeply offended by Lead Dayton's statement, and in a follow-up email to Supervisor Brown, Plaintiff accused Dayton of lying, attacking her, and damaging Plaintiff's reputation. Id. at 1. On October 15, 2018, after Supervisor Brown received reports that Plaintiff told several coworkers that “Liza [Dayton] lied in the email,” Brown set up a meeting with Plaintiff to discuss Finisar's policy against spreading rumors and disrespecting coworkers. Berg Decl. Ex. 43. Plaintiff describes this meeting as “hostile and offensive” and alleges that Brown treated her “inhumanly” (1) based on Brown's “tone and mannerisms” by (2) “deny[ing] all of the facts” and (3) by prohibiting Plaintiff from discussing the email with anyone else. Berg Decl. Ex. 1, at 605-607. Plaintiff also avers that Brown used her “maximum power to protect the defamation [of Plaintiff].” Id. at 607.

November 2018 Offer of Severance

On November 1, 2018, Plaintiff provided Defendants with a third doctor's note and accommodation request. Lafky Decl. Ex 8, at 9. In the note, Dr. Jane Mossberg, M.D.,^[4] stated that she treats Plaintiff for hypertension, depression, anxiety, and shingles, and that these conditions were “severely exacerbated by the work harassment [Plaintiff] has been...