Logue v. Rand Corp.

668 F.Supp.3d 53

Sheila LOGUE, Plaintiff, v. The RAND CORPORATION, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 21-11672-PBS

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

Signed April 4, 2023

Michael B. Ackerstein, Ackerstein Law, Brookline, MA, for Plaintiff.

Alison H. Silveira, Abigail Skinner, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Saris, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Sheila Logue ("Ms. Logue") was an employee of Defendant The RAND Corporation ("RAND") for seventeen years, when her employment was terminated without explanation at 69 years of age. She brings this action alleging age and disability discrimination under Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 151B, §§ 4(1B) and 4(17) (Counts I and II) and retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1) ("FMLA") (Count III). RAND has moved for summary judgment on all counts. After hearing, the Court ALLOWS IN PART and DENIES IN PART RAND's Motion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are undisputed for purposes of summary judgment except where stated.

A. The Parties

RAND is a non-profit, global research organization that employs approximately 800 researchers who fund their contracts and projects primarily through grants.

Ms. Logue, a resident of Massachusetts, worked for RAND for 17 years on the Grants Team, a team within the Contracts, Grants & Procurement Department. When she was hired, Ms. Logue lived in California; on November 1, 2017, RAND granted her request to work remotely in Massachusetts for personal reasons.

B. Ms. Logue's Work Performance

Ms. Logue began her career at RAND as a Contracts Administrator and progressed through the ranks to her final role at RAND, a Contract Administrator III ("CA-III") on the Grants Team. As a CA-III, Ms. Logue was responsible for all processes related to the preparation, negotiation and submission of highly complex grant proposals, building and maintaining strong relationships with the Principal Investigators ("PI"s) whose grants she managed, and providing clear and timely responses to their requests, among others. Dkt. 45 ¶¶ 13, 15-16, at 4-5. She worked with several well-renowned PIs who worked on complex grants.

Ms. Logue received annual raises or merit increases until 2016, but she did not receive any merit raises in 2017, 2018, or 2019. By September 2019, she was the highest-paid CA-III on her team.

In October 2013, RAND placed Ms. Logue on a performance improvement plan ("PIP") because of issues including delays in getting back to people, an inability to complete assignments, challenges prioritizing her workload, a lack of communication with clients, and deficiencies in knowledge of current federal requirements. RAND removed Ms. Logue from the PIP in May 2014 after she made improvements and demonstrated her ability to do her work capably. Following the PIP, in 2014, 2015, and 2016, Ms. Logue received a "3" ("Fully Meets Expectations") on her performance appraisals.

Ms. Logue began to have work performance issues again in 2017. On December 6, 2017, Mr. Robert Hickam, a Contracts Administrator IV who had some oversight over Ms. Logue, received complaints from a colleague regarding Ms. Logue's performance and shared those concerns with human resources ("HR").

On January 4, 2018, Mr. Hickam reported more concerns about Ms. Logue's work performance to Ms. Danielle Abfalter, the HR Services Manager for the Grants Team, Mr. Gary Chee, one of Ms. Logue's then direct supervisors, and Mr. Dennis Flieder, the former Director of Contracts, Grants & Procurement, this time regarding her failure to abide by one of RAND's grant policies. On January 8, 2018, Ms. Logue's supervisors met with Ms. Abfalter to discuss their concerns about Ms. Logue's performance.

On April 5, 2018, RAND placed Ms. Logue on a second PIP due to "lack of timeliness and accuracy, provision of inconsistent information, poor judgment, and delayed or nonexistent communications." Dkt. 45 ¶ 38, at 11. The parties dispute whether, and when, this PIP ended.

In May 2018, Ms. Logue's colleagues emailed Mr. Hickam with concerns about her performance, and Mr. Hickam forwarded their reports to HR. In April 2018, Ms. Logue apologized for a delay in completing a budget, stating she had been "meeting hard deadlines — anticipated and unanticipated" and that she would "work on [the budget] shortly," which did not occur for 12 days. Dkt. 38-3 at 2-4.

RAND's 2017 and 2018 appraisals of Ms. Logue's performance were not completed and were labeled as "in progress." The 2017 and 2018 appraisals indicate that RAND rated her as a "2" ("Meets Some Expectations").

On September 4, 2019, one of RAND's clients contacted RAND's Chief Financial Officer regarding an invoice that Ms. Logue failed to send by the deadline. Ms. Logue admits that she did not send the invoice to the client.

On September 5, 2019, PI Dmitry Khodyakov told Ms. Logue and the Associate Director of Healthcare, Ms. Claudia McGowan, that he was "very upset" because Ms. Logue did not keep him informed of his research project's status, causing the project to drag on for a long time, which was "extremely frustrating and distracting." Dkt. 45 ¶ 48, at 14-15. It was Ms. Logue's responsibility to keep the team members apprised as to the status of the project.

On September 13, 2019, Ms. Anissa Greenfield, one of Ms. Logue's direct supervisors, emailed Ms. Logue because a subaward lacked a necessary signature for a month. Ms. Logue later admitted it was her fault the two documents were delayed and acknowledged it was "her responsibility to ensure that the amendment was reviewed and signed in a timely fashion and that a month was an extended period." Dkt. 45 ¶¶ 52-53, at 16-17.

C. Ms. Logue's Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") Leave

On October 2, 2019, Ms. Logue requested a "six week medical leave of absence to manage her high blood pressure." Dkt. 45 ¶ 54, at 16. Ms. Logue did not tell anyone other than HR the specific reason for her leave. Ms. Greenfield and Mr. Hickam did not know her specific disability. While on FMLA leave, Ms. Logue's responsibilities were split between Mr. Hickam and Ms. Greenfield.

Ms. Logue returned from leave on a limited basis in the last week of December 2019 and on a full-time basis beginning January 6, 2020. All of the awards Ms. Logue had previously been working on were assigned back to her. She requested a ramp-up period to learn RAND's new systems because RAND had implemented Workday, a new computer system, while she was on leave. Ms. Greenfield agreed to hold onto some of Ms. Logue's proposals to accommodate her request.

The parties dispute whether RAND gave Ms. Logue adequate training to use Workday. Ms. Logue says she never received any training from RAND. RAND claims she received some training on Workday. RAND had plans to bring Ms. Logue to Pittsburgh for a Workday training session but never did so because she was terminated.

D. The New Boss

Ms. Linda Duffy was hired in December 2019 as the Director of Contracts, Grants, & Procurement. Mr. Kenneth Kadlec, the Senior Manager of Contracts & Grants Services, provided Ms. Duffy with information about the department, including the fact that Ms. Logue was out on medical leave. Mr. Kadlec did not "identify any concerns he had about [Ms. Logue's] performance" to Ms. Duffy. Dkt. 50 at 7. Ms. Logue never met Ms. Duffy in person or by videoconference. Ms. Duffy asked HR about Ms. Logue's return date.

On February 20, 2020, Ms. Duffy reported to HR that Ms. Greenfield and Mr. Hickam told her that they "were 'concerned [Ms. Logue] will try to go back on out on a medical leave[.]' " Dkt. 50 at 8-9. On February 27, 2020, Ms. Duffy was told that Ms. Logue worked remotely to help with her grandchild. On March 4, 2020, Ms. Duffy also received an email from a PI which stated:

[Ms. Logue] remotely connect [sic] to todays [sic] meeting, but she was so out-of-it that this was even stranger than usual. Not knowing that she had the budget, that I had sent her the draft for coordination, multiple false statements about the supplement - she seemed to be in no shape to do this relative [sic] simple task of submitting a supplemental proposal. It has nothing to do with other deadlines or overwork, it felt like a very strong indication of other issues. She came late, turned her microphone off and had problems turning it on, could either not see (or could not follow) what was on the screen, she just seemed to be in no position to be working.

Dkt. 38-3 at 98. Furthermore, on March 6, 2020, Ms. Duffy received an email from Mr. Hickam which read:

I wanted to make you aware that [Ms. Logue] was exhibiting some strange behavior in the [Workday] training I gave her this AM . . . . [Ms. Logue] opened Windows Explorer and went into the files on her hard drive, confused as to why it wasn't there. I had to remind her I just sent it to her in an email moments before and she needed to go to Outlook. [Ms. Logue] seemed to have no awareness of what I had just told her moments before until I reminded her one more time.

Dkt. 46-9 at 2.

Ms. Duffy "wanted to 'downgrade' [Ms. Logue's] rating on her performance appraisal for 2019." Dkt. 50 at 10. In March 2020, PIs, colleagues, and some of Ms. Logue's supervisors exchanged emails detailing their concerns with Ms. Logue's performance. Despite these reported concerns, Ms. Duffy did not personally communicate any performance issues directly with Ms. Logue.

Neither Ms. Greenfield nor Mr. Hickam recommended that Ms. Logue be terminated. Up until Ms. Logue's termination, she was assigned new awards and proposals.

E. Ms. Logue's Termination

RAND terminated Ms. Logue on March 17, 2020, when she was 69 years old. RAND did not provide Ms. Logue with a reason for her termination when she was fired. Ms. Duffy (age 60 at this time) was the ultimate decisionmaker with respect to Ms. Logue's termination. Members of the HR department, including Mr. Nicholas Bacon and Ms. Abfalter, were involved...