Martinez Patterson v. AT&T Servs.

• Decision Date: 16 August 2021
• Docket Number: C18-1180-RSM
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
• Parties: MARIA DEL CARMEN MARTINEZ PATTERSON, Plaintiff, v. AT&T SERVICES INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant.

MARIA DEL CARMEN MARTINEZ PATTERSON, Plaintiff, v. AT&T SERVICES INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant.

No. C18-1180-RSM

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

August 16, 2021

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT AT&T'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant AT&T Services Inc. (“AT&T”)'s Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. #47. Plaintiff Maria del Carmen Martinez-Patterson opposes AT&T's motion. Dkt. #58. Parties have not requested oral argument, and the Court finds it unnecessary to resolve the instant motion. Having reviewed Defendant's Motion, Plaintiff's Response AT&T's Reply, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto, and the remainder of the record, the Court ORDERS that Defendant AT&T's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a Hispanic woman of Filipino and Spanish heritage who worked as a Database Administrator in Washington for AT&T from 2000 until her termination in December 2016. Plaintiff brings this action against AT&T under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”), the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and the Washington Family Leave Act (“WFLA”). Dkt. #1 at ¶ 1. Plaintiff also claims wrongful discharge and lost wages under RCW 49.52 and RCW 49.48. Id.

A. 2006 EEOC Charge

In 2006, Plaintiff filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against AT&T predecessor company, Cingular. Dkt. #52 at 9. Plaintiff has not produced a copy of the 2006 charge or any settlement agreement. Dkt. #52 at 8. She states that she brought the charge after accidentally finding out that her job title had been changed following discriminatory behavior. Id. at 9. The job title change did not result in any change in pay. The EEOC charge was resolved by changing her job title from DBA to DBA 2. Dkt. #58-1 at 7:15-21.

B. Complaints of Discriminatory Treatment from 2011-2016

In 2011, Plaintiff moved to IT Director John Rossi's organization, where she worked with three other Database Administrators: Praveen Kollipara, Anstin Hall, and Sohail Khan. Dkt. #53 at ¶¶ 9-11. From 2011 until December 2014, Plaintiff reported directly to Uday Shah, an Associate Director-Technology, who reported to Mr. Rossi. Id. at ¶ 16. Mr. Shah was based in Illinois and Mr. Rossi continues to be based in New Jersey. Plaintiff never met Mr. Shah in person, communicating only by phone and computer messaging. Dkt. #52 at 12. In or around March 2012, the Senior Tech Team Lead reporting to Mr. Shah became vacant, and Plaintiff emailed Mr. Rossi and Mr. Shah to express interest in the position. Mr. Shah determined that he would not fill that position and would instead hire another Database Administrator for the team. Dkt. #53 at ¶¶ 24-25.

In October and November 2012, Plaintiff complained to Mr. Rossi that Mr. Shah was sending her demeaning emails and text messages. Id. at ¶¶ 27-28. Plaintiff believed that because Mr. Shah was Indian, he did not respect women. Id. at ¶ 30. Plaintiff provided the emails and text messages from Mr. Shah that she found demeaning, but Mr. Rossi found nothing demeaning or unprofessional-rather, he believed that Mr. Shah's messages “seemed to be routine discussions, requests for clarification, or instructions regarding various projects, tasks, and deadlines.” Id. Nevertheless, Mr. Rossi forwarded Plaintiff's concerns to AT&T Human Resources (“HR”) to request guidance. Id. at ¶¶ 31-32. Mr. Rossi followed up with Plaintiff on November 26, 2012, at which point she reported that “things were better” between her and Mr. Shah. Id. at ¶ 35.

Mr. Rossi checked in again with Plaintiff on January 18, 2013, and she reported there were “no further incidents” with Mr. Shah. Id. at ¶ 36. However, she stated that she was having difficulty dealing with Team Lead Mehdi Hosseini, who was responsible for coordinating the work of Database Administrators, developers and analysts and determining project timelines. Id. at ¶¶ 37-38. Plaintiff reported that Mr. Hosseini was singling her out, berating her and taunting her. Dkt. #58-1 at 13; Dkt. #58-2 at ¶ 1.

On July 18, 2013, Plaintiff emailed Mr. Rossi again about Mr. Hosseini. Dkt. #53 at 12. Plaintiff's email expressed concern that she had “no voice” and “very little or no influence in the technical direction of the R12 project design, strategy and content. I don't know where this comes from but it is a message that I have been given more than once from Mehdi . . . I feel that the expectation is that we just do what we are told, with little or no influence on technical decisions . . . .” Id. Mr. Rossi forwarded the email to Debbie Russo, Hosseini's direct supervisor. Ms. Russo responded that she had worked with Mr. Hosseini for several years and “have never found him to be anything but open to all opinions and ideas.” Id. at 14. She also directed Plaintiff to “feel free to come directly to me with any issues with my team members” and hoped they could “move forward on this without further incident.” Id. at 14-15. Plaintiff viewed Ms. Russo's response as “completely side-stepp[ing] the issue by calling what he was doing ‘challenging' me. I was reporting his abusive and hostile manner towards me because I am a woman, not the fact that he disagreed with work related issues.” Dkt. #58-2 at ¶ 1. She took Ms. Russo's message to mean that Ms. Russo “would not appreciate or allow any further attempts to make complaints about the mistreatment.” Id.

On September 1, 2014, following a Fireside Chat with AT&T's former Executive Director held for AT&T employees, Plaintiff emailed Mr. Rossi regarding concerns she had about a “pattern of exclusion” by Indian men on her team. Dkt. #53 at 17-20. This pattern included a downgraded performance rating from her 2011 “Exceeds” rating, scolding from Mr. Hosseini, and minimization of her contributions by the Senior Technical Lead. Plaintiff and Mr. Rossi met to discuss her email, during which Plaintiff also raised her concern that her 2006 EEO claim was “following her” and preventing her from applying for other job opportunities at AT&T. Id. at ¶¶ 43-45. During that meeting, Plaintiff stated her belief that both Mr. Shah and Mr. Hosseini treated her differently because they were Indian and did not respect her because she is a woman. Id. at ¶¶ 47-51.

Mr. Rossi reported Plaintiff's complaint to Marybeth Dunne, AT&T's Lead EEO Consultant, who investigated the concerns raised by Plaintiff. Dkt. #54 at ¶ 4. Ms. Dunne requested a meeting with Plaintiff, and on October 8, 2014, they met to discuss Plaintiff's concerns. After meeting with Plaintiff, Ms. Dunne drafted a report summarizing her conclusions (“the EEO Report”). The EEO Report determined that no EEO policy violation was substantiated because Plaintiff could not articulate specific examples of when or how Mr. Shah and/or Mr. Hosseini discriminated against her based on her race, national origin or gender. Dkt. #57 at 2 (sealed). The EEO Report likewise concluded that Plaintiff's retaliation claim based on her 2006 claim was unsubstantiated, given that Plaintiff's leadership team had no knowledge of the 2006 complaint. Id.

On December 16, 2014, a business reorganization resulted in Mr. Shah and several team members being moved out of Mr. Rossi's organization, and Ms. Russo became the new supervisor for Plaintiff, Mr. Kollipara, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Khan. Id. at ¶¶ 55-56. In mid-2015, Plaintiff received a midterm evaluation that rated her Business Result Rating as “Fully Meets” and Leadership Rating as “Meets Some.” Dkt. #58-2 at 12. In August 12, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a rebuttal to Ms. Russo for her Midterm Evaluation, stating that this was a “lower rating than ever before for leadership skills” and was based on “inadequate experience of the rating authority” that “has at its heart a self-fulfilling goal of denying any kind of positive trajectory I may have with the company ....” Id. at 11. Her rebuttal further stated, “I am told I should take a ‘softer' stance. . . . This I suspect is because the men who are in this group, all culturally unsuited to listening to a Hispanic female address concerns they have not considered, are unhappy they have to listen to me.” Id. Her rebuttal references an instance when she was “humiliated in a group meeting before my peers and my manager, by a man from a culture other than [] the United States . . . I was cut off due to technical problems but found myself shaking at the belittling, bullying and put down I was forced to endure from a superior ....” Id.

On January 28, 2016, Plaintiff received a year-end review from Ms. Russo reporting her overall performance rating as “Meets Some.” Id. at 13. Ms. Russo commented that Plaintiff “has very strong technical skills and welcomes challenges” but needed to strengthen her communication skills-especially in group environments. Id. (“Members of various project teams have reported that [Plaintiff] needs to improve the way she handles interactions within group meeting settings, concentrating on effective listening as well as non-confrontational presentation of ideas.”).

On January 30, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a rebuttal to the year-end evaluation. She believed the downgrade on her evaluation was due “to gender and cultural differences between the United States and the country of origin for many of the men [she was] required to work with, and forms the foundation for the claim [she] lack[s] communication skills.” Id. at 14. Her rebuttal elaborated that men on her project teams would “publicly and privately belittle, intimidate and taunt” her, and stated that she has “good skills with the men from Western Civilization, and many...