Warren v. Time Warner Cable Inc.

COURTNEY WARREN, Plaintiff, v. TIME WARNER CABLE INC., Defendant.

17-CV-4029 (RRM) (ST)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 28, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, Chief United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Courtney Warren brings this action against Time Warner Cable, Inc., alleging (i) violations of Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq.; (ii) failure to accommodate, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.; and (iii) discrimination on the basis of disability, in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y. City Admin. Code § 8-107. (Compl. (Doc. No. 1).) Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Notice of Motion (Doc. No. 29)), and Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (Notice of Motion (Doc. No. 33)). For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff's motion is denied and Defendant's motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

The relevant facts outlined below are drawn from the parties' Local Rule 56.1 Statements of Material Facts, as well as evidence submitted by the parties in connection with the motion for summary judgment. Unless otherwise noted, the facts are undisputed.

Plaintiff Courtney Warren began her employment as a Customer Care Representative with Time Warner Cable Inc. ("Time Warner") in November 2014. (Defendant's Rule 56.1 Statement ("Def.'s SOF") (Doc. No. 35) at ¶¶ 12-13; Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Rule 56.1 Statement ("Pl.'s Resp. SOF") (Doc. No. 39) at ¶¶ 12-13.) As a Customer Care Representative, Warren's responsibilities were to answer customer calls; sell Time Warner cable, telephone, and internet services; and troubleshoot customer problems. (Def.'s SOF at ¶ 14; Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 14.) While Warren was employed as a Customer Sales Representative, Time Warner tracked her performance using various metrics. (Def.'s SOF at ¶¶ 20-21; Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶¶ 20-21.) The metrics used by Time Warner to track the performance of Customer Care Representatives included the results of customer satisfaction surveys ("CSAT"), the rate at which customers' needs were met on the first call ("FCR"), product sales from customer calls ("PSU"), the rate at which technicians were dispatched following customer calls ("Dispatch Rate"), the frequency with which customer calls were transferred to other Time Warner employees ("Transfer Rate"), and internal productivity ("IP"). (Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts ("Def.'s Reply Resp. SOF") (Doc. No. 41) at ¶ 21; Plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts ("Pl.'s SOF") (Doc. No. 29-1) at ¶ 3.) Warren was aware of the performance goals set by Time Warner and was able to check her performance relative to the target metrics. (Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 23; Def.'s Reply Resp. SOF at ¶ 23.) During Warren's employment, Time Warner evaluated employee performance using evaluation periods of 30-day fiscal months. (Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 24; Def.'s Reply Resp. SOF at ¶ 24.) The fiscal month began on the 19^th day of the preceding calendar month and ended on the 18^th day of the calendar month. (Id.)

A. Warren's Employment and Performance

For most of her employment, including at the time of her termination, Warren's direct supervisor was Alicia Browne. (Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 16; Def.'s Reply Resp. SOF. at ¶ 16.) Warren and Browne had a good working relationship. (Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 25; Def.'s ReplyResp. SOF at ¶ 25.) Throughout Warren's first year of employment with Time Warner, there were issues with her performance that she was working on improving. (Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 29; Def.'s Reply Resp. SOF at ¶ 29.) Warren was counseled about her performance by her supervisors, including Browne, approximately once every two to three weeks throughout her employment, from January 2015 through April 2016. (Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 27; Def.'s Reply Resp. SOF at ¶ 27.)

In May 2015, Warren's performance goals were to have a CSAT at or above 87%; FCR at or above 75%; IP at or above 88%; a Dispatch Rate at or below 10%, PSU at or above 4; and a Transfer Rate at or below 20. (Pl.'s SOF at ¶ 4; Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts ("Def.'s Resp. SOF") (Doc. No. 32) at ¶ 4.)¹ Warren received her first documented performance counseling, signed by Browne, on May 27, 2015. (Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 32; Def.'s Reply Resp. SOF at ¶ 32.) The document reported that Warren had received individual coaching eight times and "calibration" three times between fiscal March and fiscal May 2015, and that "[d]espite coaching and training provided, [Plaintiff] continue[s] to fail to consistently incorporate communication behaviors or yield performance results as expected." (Id.) The counseling document also encouraged Warren to "provide ... input and/or rebuttal" and warned: "[I]mmediate and sustained improvement of the stated deficiencies must occur. Future violations of any company policies and/or procedures whether or not specifically addressed above may result in further disciplinary action, up to and including termination." (Def.'s SOF at ¶¶ 33-34; Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 33-34.)

In the twelve-week period between May 27, 2015, and August 25, 2015, Warren received eight instances of coaching from Browne. (Def.'s SOF at ¶ 36; Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 36.) On August 25, 2015, Warren received a Written Warning for continuing to fail to meet performance objectives, signed by Browne. (Def.'s SOF at ¶ 37; Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 37.) The Written Warning noted that Warren met with Browne three times in July and August 2015 to discuss ways to meet performance expectations and reported that Warren struggled to consistently incorporate coached behaviors or "yield performance results as expected." (Id.) The Written Warning encouraged Warren to "provide ... input and/or rebuttal" and again warned Warren: "[I]mmediate and sustained improvement of the stated deficiencies must occur. Future violations of any company policies and/or procedures whether or not specifically addressed above may result in further disciplinary action, up to and including termination." (Def.'s SOF at ¶¶ 38-39; Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶¶ 38-39.) Warren's performance goals were changed to a CSAT at or above 90%; FCR at or above 75%; a Dispatch Rate at or below 7.3%, PSU at or above 10; and a Transfer Rate at or below 14.5. (Pl.'s SOF at ¶ 7; Def.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 7.)

Warren's 2015 Performance Review, drafted by Browne, gave her an overall performance rating of "Partially Meets Expectations" based on her performance metrics from the 2015 year. (Pl.'s SOF at ¶ 10; Def.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 10.) Specifically, Warren received a rating of "Partially Meets Expectations" for the FCR, PSU, and CSAT metrics, and a rating of "Does Not Meet Expectations" for her Dispatch Rate.² (Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶¶ 44-46; Def.'s Reply Resp. SOF at ¶¶ 44-46.) In the 2015 Performance Review, Warren was encouraged to "continue to seek out feedback and focus on implementing the feedback provided in her day to dayroutine." (Id.) Warren was placed on a Performance Action Plan ("PAP") on February 16, 2016. (Def.'s SOF at ¶ 52; Pl.'s SOF at ¶ 11.) Warren received her 2015 Performance Review and her PAP on February 18, 2016. (Def.'s Reply Resp. SOF at ¶¶ 42, 53.) The PAP, signed by Warren on February 18, 2016, stated that "[i]mmediate improvement is expected within 30 days. At 60 days, a final review of your performance results will be completed." (Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 54; Def.'s Reply Resp. SOF at ¶ 54.) The PAP also stated that Warren's performance data would be collected and evaluated, and that meeting performance goals and expectations over the course of the successive fiscal months would be critical to Warren's completion of the PAP. (Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 55; Def.'s Reply Resp. SOF at ¶ 55.) The PAP also encouraged Warren to "provide [her] input and/or rebuttal" and stated that Browne "remain[ed] available to help [Plaintiff] and discuss areas where [she] require[d] additional support." (Def.'s SOF at ¶ 56; Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 56.) During the PAP period, Warren monitored her performance electronically on a regular basis. (Def.'s SOF at ¶ 59; Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 59.)

On April 6, 2016, Browne met with Warren to discuss her performance during the March 2016 fiscal month. (Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 61; Def.'s Reply Resp. SOF at ¶ 61.) In the March 2016 fiscal month, Warren's Customer Satisfaction rating was 88.39%; her FCR was 78.52%; her Dispatch Rate was 8.73%; her IP was 89.65%; her Transfer Rate was 8.5%; and her PSU was 4. (Def.'s SOF at ¶ 120; Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 120.) The Performance Improvement/Corrective Action Form given to Warren at the April 6, 2016, meeting stated that Warren "failed to yield performance results in Customer Satisfaction, Dispatch Rate and Sales (PSU) as expected" and that in the next 30 days it was "expected that her current performance show measurable and sustained improvement and ... meet the department metrics and standards." (Def.'s SOF at ¶ 62; Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 62.) The Performance Improvement/Corrective Action form comparedWarren's performance during the March 2016 fiscal month in "Key Performance Metrics" to her 2015 performance metrics, showing that three out of the six metrics - CSAT, Dispatch Rate, and PSU - for the March 2016 fiscal month did not meet expectations. (Def.'s SOF at ¶ 63; Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 63.) The Performance Improvement/Corrective Action Form also encouraged Warren to "provide [her] input and/or rebuttal" and stated that Browne "remain[ed] available to help [Plaintiff] and discuss areas where [she] require[d] additional support." (Def.'s SOF at ¶ 63; Pl.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 64.) Browne told Warren that she was improving and she should "keep doing what [she was] doing." (Pl.'s SOF at ¶ 19; Def.'s Resp. SOF at ¶ 19.)

The Performance Improvement/Corrective Action Form further states that Time Warner would review Warren's ...