Slone v. Voorhis, Slone, Welsh, Crossland Architects, Inc.

1

William Slone, Plaintiff, v. Voorhis, Slone, Welsh, Crossland Architects, Inc., Defendant.

No. 1:20-cv-00204

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

March 28, 2023

OPINION & ORDER

Michael R. Barrett, Judge United States District Court

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Voorhis, Slone, Welsh, Crossland Architects, Inc. (Doc. 31). Plaintiff William Slone filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 36),^[1]and Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 38).

I. BACKGROUND^[2]

The parties. Plaintiff began working for Defendant in 1984 as a non-professional who cleaned the office, and he worked in this custodial position through 1995. (Doc. 22 William Slone Dep. PageID 128). Starting in 1992 i.e., the start of Plaintiff's studies at the University of Cincinnati's six-year architectural program, Plaintiff served as a summer intern and as a fall or spring semester cooperative education experience employee, also known as "co-op employee," at Defendant at various times between 1992 and 1998. (Id. PageID 128-33). In September 1998, after Plaintiff's graduation, he began working for Defendant full-time, as a graduate architect, and did so until 2001. (Id. PageID 108-109, 134-35). In 2001, Plaintiff voluntarily left Defendant to study for and take various certification examinations to become a registered architect, i.e., licensed architect, and do so without the pressure of studying while also working full-time. (Id. PageID 108-09, 137-38). Plaintiff passed each of the certification examinations that same year and his license became effective on January 1, 2002. (Id. PageID 109). He then worked at various architectural firms until he eventually reapplied to work for Defendant in November 2014. (Id. PageID 110-128, 146). Defendant hired Plaintiff in November 2014 on a temporary basis and then hired him in a full-time position in March 2015. (Doc. 24 Christopher Dumford^[3] Dep. PageID 845). Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment on September 6, 2018, via written letter, "for unacceptable job performance, including" a "failure to" "build[] relationships with fellow employees". (Id. Ex. 12 PageID 988).

Defendant is a full-service architectural firm based in Mason, Ohio that specializes in public buildings, particularly in the primary and secondary educational building market. (Doc. 24 Dumford Dep. PageID 827-28). Plaintiff's father, Robert Slone, was a partner at Defendant from, at least, 1984 to, at least, 2018. See, e.g., (Doc. 22 William Slone Dep. PageID 128-29, 132, 135); (Doc. 24 Dumford Dep. PageID 821-22). Defendant's partners own the firm; however, newer associates recently obtained small ownership shares. (Doc. 24 Dumford Dep. PageID 822-23). Defendant currently has twenty employees, including six partners. (Id. PageID 823, 828).

1998 car accident. In May 1998, Plaintiff was a passenger in a car that was involved in a serious car accident. (Doc. 22 Slone Dep. PageID 134). Plaintiff suffered significant injuries as a result of this accident, including double vision, broken bones, minor burns, a partially severed nerve that resulted in partial paralysis of his left arm, and a head injury that resulted in a two-week coma. (Id. PageID 134-35, 138-41).

When Plaintiff began working for Defendant in September 1998 as a graduate architect, he was still in significant recovery from the accident. (Id. PageID 150-52). Many of Defendant's employees knew of Plaintiff's accident at the time that it occurred. See, e.g., (Doc. 23 Brian Gilliland^[4]Dep. PageID 726); (Doc. 24 Dumford Dep. PageID 829); (Doc. 27 Jim Voorhis^[5] Dep. PageID 1176-77); (Doc. 28 Paul Brokamp^[6] Dep. PageID 1245). When Plaintiff reapplied to work for Defendant in November 2014, those same co-workers were still working for Defendant. See, e.g., (Doc. 23 Gilliland Dep. PageID 722-23) (Gilliland has worked continuously at Defendant since 1992); (Doc. 24 Dumford Dep. PageID 822); (Dumford has worked continuously at Defendant since 1995); (Doc. 27 Voorhis Dep. PageID 1172); (Voorhis has worked continuously at Defendant since 1985); (Doc. 28 Brokamp Dep. PageID 1241) (Brokamp worked continuously at Defendant since the 1980's through 2020).

January 2018. Defendant gave all of its employees their respective 2017 performance reviews-made up of an in-person meeting, written self-evaluation, and preliminary and final written evaluation by Defendant-in January 2018. (Doc. 24 Dumford Dep. PageID 76-77). Messrs. Dumford, Crossland,^[7] and Gilliland, each partners at Defendant at the time, conduced Plaintiff's in-person 2017 performance review meeting. (Id.) Before this meeting, Defendant asked Plaintiff to complete a written self-evaluation-with 20 performance categories, each with a 1 to 5, unsatisfactory to excellent, rating scale-and Defendant, via Messrs. Dumford, Crossland, and Gilliland, shared its preliminary written evaluation of Plaintiff to Plaintiff-with the same 20 performance categories and rating scale. (Id. PageID 876, 879). In Plaintiff's selfevaluation, he rated himself 5 out of 5 in all 20 categories. (Doc. 22 Slone Depo. PageID 217); (Id. Ex. 3 PageID 603-06). In Defendant's final written evaluation of Plaintiff, Defendant rated Plaintiff as satisfactory or higher, i.e., rated as a 3 or higher, in 18 of 20 categories. (Doc. 24 Dumford Dep. PageID 879); (Id. Ex. 2 PageID 963-65). Defendant rated Plaintiff as "Improvement Needed," i.e., a rated him as a 2 in both "Treats other employees with respect" and "Modeling of Core Values." (Id. Ex. 2 PageID 963).

June 2018. At some point in mid-June 2018, Mr. Brokamp, a partner at Defendant at this time, stopped by Plaintiff's work space to give Plaintiff a quick, five-minute update on a project that Plaintiff was working on with Brokamp. (Doc. 22 Slone Dep. PageID 24445, 471-72). Plaintiff testifies that, as Mr. Brokamp was describing the client's requests thus far, Brokamp told Plaintiff, "Bill, I know you have problems remembering things. You should get a pencil,^[8] and be writing this down." (Id. PageID 244-45); (Doc. 24 Dumford Dep. Ex. 4 PageID 976) (Aug. 30. 2018 letter to Defendant's partners from Plaintiff) (Plaintiff describes Mr. Brokamp's June 2018 statement as: "Bill, I know you have problems remembering things, you should be writing this down."). Mr. Brokamp denies making the statement about Plaintiff's memory. (Doc. 28 Brokamp Dep. PageID 126768).

Later in June 2018, Plaintiff and one of his co-workers, Teresa Mullins,^[9] got into a verbal argument after Plaintiff threw away another co-worker's coffee mug. (Doc. 22 Slone Dep. PageID 232-33, 301); (Doc. 24 Dumford Dep. Ex. 5 PageID 981). (Doc. 30 Mullins Dep. PageID 1394-1405). The argument ended with Ms. Mullins telling Plaintiff that was he was "mental." (Doc. 30 Mullins Dep. PageID 1401). Plaintiff testifies that Ms. Mullins told Plaintiff was he was "mental, and everyone knows it." (Doc. 22 Slone Dep. PageID 232). Ms. Mullins denies telling Plaintiff that "everyone knows it." (Doc. 30 Mullins Dep. PageID 1403). Mr. Dumford, who acts as the Human Resources department for Defendant, investigated the incident. (Doc. 24 Dumford Dep. Ex. 6 PageID 982); (Id. Ex. 7 PageID 983-84). Ultimately, Plaintiff and Ms. Mullins attended a three-hour session with a prior mediator, and both felt better towards one another after the mediation session. (Doc. 22 Slone Dep. PageID 160); (Doc. 30 Mullins Dep. PageID 1406-07).

August 2018. Approximately a week before a previously scheduled partners' meeting, that was scheduled for August 31, 2018, Plaintiff's father requested time at that meeting to discuss the status of Plaintiff's employment. (Doc. 24 Dumford Dep. PageID 925, 930). Defendant's partners agreed to do so. (Id. PageID 930).

The evening before Defendant's partners' meeting, on August 30, 2018, Plaintiff emailed Defendant's partners. (Id. Ex. 4 PageID 966-80). The email is fifteen printed pages in length and, although its subject-line reads "regarding my 2017 [] Performance Evaluation," it discusses many topics and frustrations that Plaintiff has with Defendant and various employees of Defendant, including, inter alia, Mr. Brokamp's June 2018 statement to Plaintiff that, "Bill, I know you have problems remembering things, you should be writing this down." (Id. PageID 976-78).

On August 31, 2018, Defendant's partners held an off-site daylong partners' meeting. (Doc. 24 Dumford Dep. PageID 925-26). Defendant's partners, including Plaintiff's father, discussed Plaintiff's August 30, 2018 email at this meeting. (Id. PageID 930). After this group discussion about the email, Plaintiff's father agreed to leave the room while the remainder of Defendant's partners discussed how to move forward with Plaintiff's employment at Defendant. (Id. PageID 931-32). With Plaintiff's father out of the room, each of Defendant's remaining partners voted to terminate Plaintiff. (Id. PageID 932-33).

September 2018. On September 4, 2018, after Defendant's partners voted to terminate Plaintiff, Mr. Voorhis drafted a memorandum titled "VSWC Incident Report" that discussed a project that Mr. Voorhis and Plaintiff were working on. (Doc. 27 Voorhis Dep. PageID 1192); (Id. Ex. 8 PageID 1229).

On September 6, 2018, Defendant informed Plaintiff of his immediate termination via an in-person meeting with Messrs Voorhis, Brokamp, and Brad Adams, and via a hand-delivered letter from Jim Voorhis. (Doc. 24 Dumford Dep. Ex. 12 PageID 988); (Doc. 27 Voorhis Dep. PageID 1195). The letter states: "Dear Bill: This letter shall confirm that you are being terminated, effective immediately, for unacceptable job performance, including but not limited to your failure to comply with the Company's core values of building relationships...