Montague v. Sodexco, Inc.

BARBARA MONTAGUE, Plaintiff, v. SODEXCO, INC. AND YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL, INC., Defendants.

No. 3:15-cv-00972 (MPS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

October 6, 2017

RULING ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Barbara Montague filed this action against Defendants Sodexo, Inc. ("Sodexo")¹ and Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc. ("YNHH") after Montague was terminated from her employment with Sodexo and from her placement at YNHH. Montague brings claims for discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, and marital status in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (Count One); age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. (Count Two); discrimination based on the filing of a workers' compensation claim in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-290a (Count Three); disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") (Count Four); intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count Five); and discrimination in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act ("CFEPA"), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-51 et seq. (Count Six). (ECF No. 20.)

On November 21, 2016, Sodexo and YNHH filed motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 54, 58.) Defendants contend that Montague's claims, to the extent they are based on any events that occurred prior to Montague's departure for medical leave, are time-barred; that the undisputed evidence in the record shows Montague's termination was due to Sodexo's decision to downsize by eliminating 134 positions; that Montague failed to meet her burden in producing evidence that her termination was on the basis of her race, color, religion, marital status, sex, age, claimed disability, or receipt of workers' compensation benefits; and that Montague failed to put forth evidence to support a hostile work environment claim.

For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motions are GRANTED.

I. Factual Background

The following facts are taken from Defendants' Local Rule 56(a)(1) Statements and the exhibits.² See Sodexo's Local Rule 56(a)(1) Statement, ECF No. 58-2; YNHH's Local Rule 56(a)(1) Statement, ECF No. 57. Because Montague did not file a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts pursuant to Local Rule 56(a)(2), the material facts set forth in Defendants' Local Rule 56(a)(1) statements and supported by the evidence will be deemed admitted. L.R. 56(a)(1) ("Each material fact set forth in the Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement and supported by the evidence will be deemed admitted (solely for purposes of the motion) unless such fact is controverted by the Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement required to be filed and served by the opposing party in accordance with this Local Rule . . . .). See also Burke v. Town of East Hartford, No. 14-CV-662 (JCH), 2016 WL 8709993, at *1 n.3 (D. Conn. Mar. 4, 2016) ("[Plaintiff] failed to file the requisite Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement among his papers opposing the defendants' Motion. By operationof Local Rule 56(a)(1), this failure has the effect of 'deem[ing] admitted' 'all material facts set forth in [the moving party's Local Rule 56(a)(1) Statement] and supported by the evidence."). The facts are undisputed unless otherwise stated.

A. Montague Becomes a General Manager at Sodexo

Montague, who is an African-American woman and Pentecostal, and was born in 1958, began working for Sodexo in 2004. (ECF No. 56-2 at 2; ECF No. 57 ¶¶ 1-2; ECF No. 58-2 ¶¶ 1-2.) In May 2007, Montague became the Operations Manager at Sodexo client YNHH, assigned to work in YNHH's Service Response Center ("SRC"), which handles maintenance requests within the hospital. (ECF No. 57 ¶ 3, 5; ECF No. 58-2 ¶ 8; ECF No. 58-3 at 24, 26; ECF No. 58-8 at 9-10; ECF No. 60-1 ¶ 3.) The position was a promotion from Montague's previous Sodexo position at Stamford Hospital and came with a pay increase. (ECF No. 58-2 ¶ 9; ECF 58-3 at 24, 32.) Montague was employed by Sodexo and assigned to perform services at YNHH through its vendor contract with Sodexo. (ECF No. 56-1 at 25; ECF No. 57 ¶ 4.)

After she had been Operations Manager for approximately one month, in June 2007 Montague was asked and agreed to fill in as the General Manager for YNHH's SRC, while Sodexo looked for candidates to fill the position on a more permanent basis. (ECF No. 58-2 ¶ 10; ECF No. 58-3 at 31.) Montague filled in as the General Manager for several months, overseeing service provision by employees at YNHH. (ECF No. 58-2 ¶ 11; ECF No. 58-3 at 34-36, 38.) Montague testified at her deposition that she "didn't know what [she] was doing as ops manager, so [she] certainly didn't know what [she] was doing as GM" (ECF No. 58-3 at 35), and that she felt "totally green" and left "in the GM position by [her]self." (ECF No. 58-3 at 51.)

In her affidavit, Montague states that she "received no training" for her position as Operations Manager, or for when she filled in as General Manager. (ECF No. 60-1 ¶¶ 3-4.)Montague testified at her deposition, however, that she completed all of the classes required to become a General Manager. (ECF No. 58-3 at 41.) She also testified that during the 11-month period in which she was filling in as General Manager, she did not have any complaints about being treated unfairly. (ECF No. 58-3 at 41.) Montague did not request additional training from Defendants while filling in as General Manager. (ECF No. 58-2 ¶ 11; ECF No. 58-3 at 35-37.)

After filling in as General Manager for several months, in March 2008 Montague was offered, and she accepted, the position of General Manager 2, a promotion that resulted in another pay increase. (ECF No. 58-2 ¶ 12; ECF No. 58-3 at 37-38, 42-43; ECF No. 58-8 at 12-13.) Montague took classes as part of her training as a General Manager 2. (ECF No. 58-2 ¶ 13; ECF No. 58-3 at 40.) Montague testified that she believes she completed all of the classes that were required to use the service tracking application she used in her position. (ECF No. 58-2 ¶ 13; ECF No. 58-3 at 43.) Montague testified that she also received training regarding use of the application and Sodexo's procedures from a Senior Manager and a Customer Service Manager in the Express Services Division of which the SRC was a part. (ECF No. 58-2 ¶¶ 14-15; ECF No. 58-3 at 44-49; ECF No. 58-8 at 4 ¶ 12.) A Senior Manager in the Express Services Division, "went over some things with" Montague, though Montague testified that "just showing someone something doesn't mean that they are trained." (ECF No. 58-4 at 1; ECF No. 58-8 at 4 ¶ 12.)

Montague never complained to anyone at Sodexo that she was not receiving sufficient training; Montague testified that she "did not realize that - you don't realize what you are missing until you see someone else who has something that you don't have." (ECF No. 58-2 ¶ 16; ECF No. 58-4 at 2-3.)

B. A YNHH Employee Allegedly Makes Racially Discriminatory Comments Regarding Montague's Marriage

In December 2009, Montague married Harry Nicholls, a white man who was employed by YNHH as a System Director. (ECF No. 56-1 at 3; ECF No. 57 ¶ 7; ECF No. 60-1 ¶ 5.) According to Montague, in or around December 2009 or January 2010, David Wurcel, a Vice President at YNHH and Nicholls' supervisor, told Nicholls that he had "ruined his career by marrying a black woman," and that "[b]lack women are to be played with, not married." (ECF No. 58-4 at 46, 49-50, 59; ECF No. 60-1 ¶ 6.) Montague also testified that Wurcel's "characterizations of [Montague] were negative," which bothered Nicholls. (ECF No. 56-1 at 50.) Montague testified that Wurcel made these comments around the time Montague and Mr. Nicholls returned from their honeymoon, and that Montague "knew that when Harry and [she] got married, his boss didn't like it." (ECF No. 58-3 at 12.) Montague states in her affidavit that she knew of these statements because her husband relayed them to her. (ECF No. 60-1 ¶ 7.) Montague does not contend that anyone at Sodexo expressed agreement with Wurcel's comments; she testified, rather, that people at Sodexo congratulated her on her marriage to Nicholls. (ECF No. 58-3 at 13.) Montague provides no evidence that anyone at Sodexo knew of Wurcel's comments.

Montague testified that in January 2010, while at a holiday party, she reported Wurcel's comments to Kevin Myatt, the senior vice president of Human Resources at YNHH. (ECF No. 58-4 at 26-27; ECF No. 60-1 ¶ 8.) Montague testified that she did not recall that Myatt said anything in response, but that he "may have said something along the lines [of], [']there is a new sheriff in town.[']" (ECF No. 58-4 at 27.) Montague testified that she did not ask Myatt to elaborate, and hoped that his statement meant that comments like Wurcel's would not be tolerated. (ECF No. 58-4 at 28.)

C. Montague's Receives Notice of Low Performance Scores at Work in her 2010 and 2011 Performance Reviews

YNHH administered employee engagement surveys annually to gauge how YNHH employees felt about their managers. (ECF No. 58-2 ¶ 17; ECF No. 58-3 at 16; ECF No. 58-8 at 3 ¶ 5.) Beginning in or around 2010, Montague's employee engagement surveys were low. (ECF No. 58-2 ¶ 17; ECF No. 58-3 at 16.)

In Montague's performance review for the 2011 fiscal year, dated October 9, 2011, Montague received ratings of "Meets Expectations" or "Above Expectations" for all of her performance goals, with the exception of one goal, for which she received an "Outstanding" rating. (ECF No. 58-8 at 15-27.) Under the performance goal titled "Building a Diverse Team," the "Manager Comments" stated, "Barb's efforts in this area must be reflected in the upcoming hospital employee satisfaction scores." (ECF No. 58-2 ¶ 18; ECF No. 58-4 at 31; ECF No. 58-8 at 22.) Under "Managing Employee Performance and Development (GM)," the "Manager Comments" noted, "Barb needs to continue to focus on items that will help to increase employee satisfaction levels within her department. ...