Roberds v. AT&T Operations, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 September 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:11-CV-1027 CAS,4:11-CV-1027 CAS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
| Parties | CHRISTINA CARSON ROBERDS, Plaintiff, v. AT&T OPERATIONS, INC., Defendant. |
This matter is before the Court on defendant AT&T Operations, Inc.'s ("AT&T") motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff Christina Carson Roberds ("plaintiff") opposes the motion and it is fully briefed. Because the undisputed evidence demonstrates that plaintiff's complaint does not raise any genuine issues of material fact for trial, the motion will be granted.
Plaintiff was employed by defendant AT&T beginning in September 2003 and was terminated from employment in May 2010. Plaintiff filed this action in June 2011, alleging that her termination was in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq. (Count I), and the Missouri Human Rights Act ("MHRA"), Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 213.010, et seq. (2000) (Count II). Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her federal FMLA claim with prejudice in June 2012. After inviting briefing from the parties, the Court determined that it has diversity jurisdiction over plaintiff's MHRA claim. See Memorandum and Order of July 6, 2012 (Doc. 28).
In the remaining MHRA claim, plaintiff alleges pregnancy discrimination, asserting that her pregnancies were a contributing factor in the termination of her employment; and disability discrimination, asserting that (1) her pregnancies were an actual disability and a contributing factorin the termination of her employment, and (2) her pregnancies were a perceived or "regarded as" disability and a contributing factor in the termination of her employment.
1. Plaintiff Christina Carson Roberds is a former senior consultant for AT&T Operations, Inc. at its Consumer Sales and Service Call Center in Olivette, Missouri (Pl. Dep. 16-17; Hill ¶5).2
2. As a senior consultant, plaintiff's job duties included handling sales and service contacts with customers, and using computer systems to initiate and complete service orders and handle customer requests, complaints and inquires, while working to meet revenue goals, service commitments and other deadlines, and investigating and resolving customer billing issues (Pl. Dep. 17-18; Hill ¶6).
3. This was a full-time, non-management position whose terms and conditions are governed by the applicable agreement between AT&T and the Communications Workers of America (Pl. Dep. 16-17; Hill ¶7).
4. Plaintiff had a net credited service ("NCS") or seniority date of October 23, 2003 (Hill ¶8).
5. Senior consultants such as plaintiff are supervised by employees holding the title Coach Leader (Pl. Dep.19; Hill ¶9).
6. The Coach Leaders report to the Center Sales Manager who in turn reports to the General Manager (Pl. Dep. 32-33; Hill ¶10).
7. AT&T managers impose positive discipline when an employee's job performance is deficient in attendance, safety and/or measurement of work (Hill ¶11).
8. At the first level of discipline, the employee's supervisor implements a "Performance Notice" and the supervisor and employee discuss the performance issue (Hill ¶12). A union representative may also be present. The employee is informed of the deficient area of performance and the consequences if there is no improvement. The written Performance Notice is placed in the employee's file, and remains "active" for six months (Hill ¶12).
9. If the first level Performance Notice does not resolve the issue, the next step in the process is referred to as the second level "Written Reminder" (Hill ¶13). This Written Reminder includes a formal discussion between the employee and his or her supervisor about a serious performance issue. An actual written reminder of the discussion is given to the employee documenting the conversation (Hill ¶13). This second level of discipline is reached when the employee has not corrected a performance deficiency within six months following issuance of aPerformance Notice (Hill ¶13). The employee is entitled to have a union representative present at the meeting (Hill ¶13). The Written Reminder is "active" for nine months. If the same problem continues while the Written Reminder is active, the employee reaches the Level Three, which is called a Decision Making Leave ("DML") (Hill ¶13).
10. The DML is the third and final level of the Positive Discipline system (Hill ¶14). The third level begins with a discussion, during which the employee is informed about an extremely serious performance problem that can result in dismissal. At the end of the meeting, the employee is placed on a DML for the following work day (with pay) to consider whether he or she can meet the job expectations. The day after that, the employee meets with the supervisor and either commits to meeting all of the conditions of his or her employment or resigns. (Id.). If the employee commits to staying and improving his or her performance, the employee is informed that he or she is subject to dismissal if the problem is not resolved. Again, the employee is entitled to union representation at both meetings. (Id.). The DML is active for twelve months (Hill ¶14).
11. If an employee's performance is deemed unsatisfactory for any reason while he or she is on a DML, the employee may then be suspended by the Center Sales Manager pending termination (Hill ¶15).
12. Following the suspension, the employee is permitted to meet with the Center's Center Sales Manager or General Manager for his or her "Day-in-Court" (Hill ¶17). At the Day In Court Meeting, the employee is given the opportunity to provide information he or she would like to be considered before final decision to either discharge or retain is made (Hill ¶17). After the Day In Court Meeting, a final decision to either discharge or reinstate the employee (Hill ¶17). At the Day-in-Court, the employee is again entitled to union representation. (Id.)
13. The expectations of the job changed over the years and shifted from outbound calls to inbound calls (Pl. Dep. 19-20, 78-80; Hill ¶18).
14. Plaintiff considered the inbound calls more difficult (Pl. 79-80).
15. Plaintiff reported to various Coach Leaders over the years (Pl. Dep. 67-70; Hill ¶19).
16. All of plaintiff's coach leaders worked with her in an effort to improve her performance (Pl. Dep. 73-75; Hill ¶20).
17. The coach leaders had different styles and plaintiff learned different things from each of them (Pl. Dep. 70).
18. Plaintiff testified that she got along with her coach leaders over the years, (Pl. Dep. 67-70), although she filed a union grievance against coach leader Jennifer Gardner sometime in 2007 that "had something to do with [plaintiff] doing union work or union conversations during company time." (Id. at 71-72). Plaintiff also testified that, in general, she got along with Gardner "pretty well" other than the one incident though they "didn't have much contact" and "didn't know each other on a personal level" or "outside of work experiences" but plaintiff would say hello when she would see Gardner in the hall. Id. at 70. In her Affidavit, plaintiff avers that the settlement of her union grievance was that Gardner would never supervise her again. (Pl.'s Aff., ¶9).
19. The coach leaders would provide development time where the sales coach would listen to calls and coached with feedback on the calls on how to improve performance (Pl. Dep. 73-75; Hill ¶21).
20. Plaintiff's supervisors talked with her about the expectation to follow a sales "call flow' and to make sales offers on every call (Pl. Dep. 80-81; Hill ¶22).
21. As part of that coaching, plaintiff was given a written Call Flow Process Job Aid that she was expected to follow (Pl. Dep. 74, 80-81; Hill ¶23; Ex. B-3). The Job Aid was on a sheet of paper that was in front of her at her desk every day (Pl. Dep. 83-84).
22. Plaintiff was evaluated on how well she followed the call flow process (Pl. Dep. 81; Hill ¶24).
23. On May 28, 2008, plaintiff's Coach Leader Jackie Robinson placed her on a Performance Notice for not meeting performance expectations (Pl. Dep. 86, 88; Hill ¶25; Ex. B-4).
24. After the Performance Notice, plaintiff received additional coaching and development (Pl. Dep. 91; Hill ¶26).
25. On October 30, 2008, plaintiff's Coach Leader Nanette Elkins placed her on a Developmental Road Map to improve her job performance because she was below expectations (Pl. Dep. 90; Hill ¶27). Plaintiff was informed that she would continue on the DRM until her expectation goals were met and that if she did not meet desired performance goals, positive discipline could be imposed (Hill ¶27).
26. Despite these steps, plaintiff's numbers were not improving, so on November 19, 2008, plaintiff's Coach Leader Kendra Clay placed her on a Written Reminder for unsatisfactory call quality, including not following the required call flow (Pl. Dep. 86-91; Hill ¶28; Ex. B-5). Plaintiff understood that the Written Reminder remained in effect for nine months (Pl. Dep. 91-92).
27. On June 18, 2009, plaintiff's sales coach implemented a Developmental Road Map for her due to plaintiff not following the required call flow (Pl. Dep. 97-98; Hill ¶30; Ex. B-6).
28. Plaintiff's sales coaches continued to have regular developmental sessions in addition to monitoring feedback to try to assist her in improving her performance (Pl. Dep. 91-92-93; Hill ¶29; Ex. B-2). The coaches would coach her on areas of opportunity, demonstrated role plays,conducted side by side coaching giving her immediate feedback and reminding her of the expectation to follow the call flow (Pl. Dep. 92-99; Hill ¶29; Ex. B-2). At times, plaintiff's sales coaches also placed her with a high performing representative for peer coaching and she was advised to use the key learnings and coaching received on all calls going forward (Pl. Dep. 73-76, 95; Hill ¶29; Ex. B-2).
29. Plaintiff's sales coaches would...
To continue reading
Request your trial