Ross-Tiggett v. Reed Smith LLP

LA MECIA ROSS-TIGGETT, Plaintiff, v. REED SMITH LLP, DIANE BETTINO, CAROLYN MARIANO, DENISE PAPANIER,KELLIE LAVERY, ESQ., LAURA CONROY, ESQ., FLEMING WARE, ESQ.,CHRISTINE PHILLIPS, GREYSON VAN DYKE, MEGAN CICHON a/k/a MEGANMANTIS, KRISTINE CAMARDA, MARIA FRIAS, JOHN DOES 1-100,and JANE DOES 1-100, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 15-8083 (JBS-AMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

August 24, 2016

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:

This is an employment discrimination case filed by pro se Plaintiff La Mecia Ross-Tiggett, who was fired shortly after being promoted to a paralegal position at Reed Smith LLP. Ross-Tiggett, who is a forty-two year old African American, was first hired as a temporary employee at the Princeton, New Jersey office of Reed Smith, and worked there for approximately two years before her termination.

Ross-Tiggett names Reed Smith LLP and eleven of its employees as Defendants in this case. The individual Defendants include the managing partner of the firm's Princeton office, five paraprofessionals or administrative support staff, three current or former attorneys,¹ and three human resource professionals.

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint² contains a myriad of federal and state claims. In addition to various claims for race and age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"), she alleges that Reed Smith and specifically named employees violated the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), the New Jersey Family Leave Act ("NJFLA"), and the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act ("CEPA").

All Defendants have moved for sanctions against Ross-Tiggett under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 [Docket Item 5], and the eleven individual Defendants have additionally moved to dismiss [Docket Item 12] the claims against them under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted [Docket Item 9]. Defendant Reed Smith has not filed a motion todismiss and all claims against them are therefore still ripe for review and will not be addressed by the Court.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court will permit the LAD-based claim of discrimination against Phillips to proceed, but will dismiss all other claims against the individual Defendants. The Court will also deny Defendants' motion for sanctions. The Court finds as follows:

A. Background³

1. Plaintiff was hired by Reed Smith in April of 2012 as a temporary employee. (Am. Compl. ¶ 27.) At the time she was hired and during her tenure, the Princeton office of Reed Smith employed no junior, mid-level, or senior African American associates, paralegals, paraprofessionals, or law clerks. (Id. ¶ 29.)

2. On July 20, 2012, Plaintiff was offered a full-time position as a non-billable Client Services Specialist. (Id. ¶ 30.) Her performance reviews in this position were good; on a scale of 1-5, she received scores of 4 or 5. [Docket Item 31.]

3. At the same time, Plaintiff expressed interest in advancing at Reed Smith to higher positions. She took several Reed Smith University courses to prepare herself for an advancement. (Id.)

4. Plaintiff worked as a non-billable Client Services Specialist for approximately two years before being promoted to the position of Paralegal I in July of 2014. (Id. ¶ 37.)

5. Plaintiff alleges that during those two years, Defendant Megan Cichon, a white female who is younger than Plaintiff and with less experience, was hired for a billable Client Service Specialist position and was promoted to Paralegal in February of 2014, approximately 13 months after her hire. (Id. ¶¶ 31, 33.) Also during those two years, Defendant Maria Frias, a Latina female who is younger than Plaintiff and with less experience, began working at Reed Smith and was promoted to replace Cichon as a billable Client Service Specialist approximately one year later. (Id. at ¶ 36.) Likewise, Defendant Greyson Van Dyke, a white male who is younger than Plaintiff with less experience, was hired as a temporary employee and was promoted to a Paraprofessional position in September of 2013 atthe end of his temporary assignment. Both Cichon and Van Dyke's promoted positions were more highly paid than Plaintiff's position. (Id. ¶¶ 34, 35.)

6. Shortly after being promoted to paralegal, during a weekly paralegal meeting on July 30, 2014, Plaintiff was told by Defendant Christine Phillips, a paralegal at Reed Smith and Plaintiff's "local paralegal supervisor," that a document production assignment that was assigned to Plaintiff was being reassigned to Van Dyke. Phillips asked Plaintiff to stay behind after the meeting and told Plaintiff that she seemed like she was "walking around with an attitude." (Id. ¶ 39.)

7. Plaintiff later followed up with Phillips, who told her that "everything was good and that there were no issues." However, when Plaintiff returned from vacation in August, she found that many of her assignments were reassigned to other paralegals without warning or explanation to Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 40.)

8. Plaintiff asked Phillips numerous times about her performance, and Phillips told Plaintiff to "stop asking, you're doing fine." (Id. ¶ 42.)

9. On August 15, 2014, Plaintiff alleges she was called into a meeting with Defendant Denise Papanier, Reed Smith's Human Resources Manager, and two other supervisors not named inthe Complaint "to discuss alleged performance issues." (Id. ¶ 42.)

10. Before the meeting began, Plaintiff contacted Defendant Mariano to make her aware of the situation and forwarded a formal complaint of harassment. (Id.)

11. Plaintiff was told of various performance issues, including not accurately recording her time; vague communication regarding when she would be working and when she would be coming in late or leaving early; billing hours during her planned vacation when she was told not to work; taking too long to complete assignments; and leaving her office door closed too often.

12. Plaintiff counters each of these critiques in detail and describes how in each of these the negative comments were inaccurate or otherwise incorrect. She further alleges that none of her colleagues who were white received these criticisms for similar behavior. (Id. ¶¶ 44-72.)

13. On October 2, 2014, Plaintiff discovered that she was locked out of all documents related to a case she had worked on for the past two years and had been removed from that workgroup. (Id. ¶ 73.)

14. Shortly thereafter, she was given an interim review which contained feedback from several attorneys and team members, including Defendants Diane Bettino, the Princeton, NewJersey office's Managing Partner; Laura Conroy, Esq.; Kellie Lavery, Esq.; Fleming Ware, Esq.; Kristine Carmarda, Legal Secretary; Phillips, Cichon, Frias, and Van Dyke. The review contained numerous negative comments: Plaintiff did not follow set protocol for completing projects; spent too much time on certain projects and asked questions not relevant to the issues in the case; needed to develop more technical skills; created other work that was not assigned to her; needed to improve her time management skills; and had trouble meeting deadlines and prioritizing assignments. There were also concerns about the quality of Plaintiff's work product.

15. Plaintiff again describes in detail how each of these comments were inaccurate or otherwise incorrect. She states, for example, that she was careful and detailed in her work and points out several instances in which she completed her assignments early or on time. She also alleges that her colleagues who were white made similar mistakes, had trouble keeping up with deadlines, and had time management issues, but were not critiqued as harshly, were not placed on probation, and were not taken off workgroups. (Id. ¶¶ 75-152.)

16. Beginning in October of 2014, Plaintiff was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan, and her billable work was taken away and replaced with non-billable administrative work. (Id. ¶ 153.)

17. Approximately two months later, in December of 2014, Reed Smith created a job posting for a Paralegal position in Plaintiff's department. (Id. ¶ 153.)

18. On June 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for discrimination, disparate treatment, and retaliation based on race, color, gender, age, and religion. Defendants were aware of Plaintiff's complaint with the EEOC and had "numerous counseling sessions with [Plaintiff] to discover what information had been relayed to the EEOC." (Id. ¶¶ 24-25.)⁴

19. Beginning June 22, 2015 and for approximately the next five months, Defendants restricted Plaintiff's access to Reed Smith's computer system and placed limits on the size of the emails Plaintiff could send. (Id. ¶ 153.) In August, Mariano emailed Plaintiff and asked that she return all client confidential documents in her possession, noting that if she did not return them, she would be subject to discipline and termination. (Id.)

20. On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff emailed Michele Reasoner, who is not a defendant in this case, requesting FMLA leave so that she could take her daughter to the doctor. TheBenefits Coordinator, Bonita Fenoglietto, who is also not a defendant in this case, responded via email that she would review Plaintiff's FMLA request "pending receipt of the FMLA certification from your daughter's other doctor." She also noted, "I am assuming [the] appointment tomorrow is related to the condition described in the original FMLA certification? If so, then tomorrow's appointment is approved as FMLA time." (Id. ¶ 153; FMLA emails [Docket Item 9-17, at 12-15].)

21. Plaintiff alleges that her FMLA request was never approved. (Compl. ¶ 153.)

22. In October, Plaintiff received an email from Reed Smith...